Talk:Lonelygirl15/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bibliomancy?

This is a quote from the article: "A bibliomancy is opening a text randomly to a page as a form of divination. It's also a school of magic in a Cthulu-like roleplaying game" I can only assume that the "Cthulu-like roleplaying game" (it should be Cthulhu, incidentally... I'll probably edit that after I post this) being refered to is Unknown Armies. I'm quite familiar with this game, as it's a personal favorite of mine. Frankly, there doesn't seem any reason at all to mention this, as it's highly unlikely that this is the kind of bibliomancy to which they are refering. But if it does seem useful to have it there, it's stupid not to just say Unknown Armies and link to the wikipedia page for that. It does have one, after all.

On CNN's webpage under "Latest News"

I'm in the midst of trying to edit out the weasel words from this article. Most of my attempt to do so will be from CNN and their article on the front page of their website under "Technology". --Shirley Grace 13:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

-> I find it remarkable how some people love to take it upon themselves to decide what are and aren't "weasel words" and mercilessly edit what dozens of authors felt were the best terms to use. Are you some kind of encyclopedia-guru? Or maybe you're just editor of a magazine/newspaper...? And no the new sources don't make a difference to what are and aren't "weasel words".

Cleanup now that we know who the actress and filmmakers are

The New York Times published an article with photos of Jessica Rose, the actress, information about the filmmakers and comments from the software engineer [1]. Some of this information is now included in the beginning of the article, and someone's changed "Speculations" to "Previous speculations", which is great. The article could really do with a LOT of cleanup now that we know the phenomenon's status as fiction. Removing most of the speculations and shortening it considerably seem advisable? Lijil 08:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, definitely. It's far too bloated as it is right now (and was even before the real story came out). WarpstarRider 08:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Section alleging "Samantha Bree" is connected to Bree

I just deleted the following section from the main article - it was titled "Samantha Bree, Actress" and placed at the end of the speculations section.

lonelygirl15's real identity uncovered? A myspace account has been discovered of an Actress named Samantha Bree, her companies listed are "CAA", intials for Creative Artists Agency. The account also has a B/W photo of Samantha Bree, undeniably looks just like lonelygirl15. Her quote of Alphonse de Lamartine "Sometimes, when one person is missing, the whole world seems depopulated" has an irony to it since her "persona" as lonelygirl15 will make the world feel depopulated to many of her fans when she is gone.

This had no references, and when I googled it I found absolutely nothing about it. I suggest that it's moved back to the main article only if it's properly sourced. Lijil 09:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Bree tied to the novel "Stargirl" by Jerry Spinelli?

In her last video, Bree says she was called "Stargirl".

The novel of the same name is described by Amazon.com as:

""She was homeschooling gone amok." "She was an alien." "Her parents were circus acrobats." These are only a few of the theories concocted to explain Stargirl Caraway, a new 10th grader at Arizona's Mica Area High School who wears pioneer dresses and kimonos to school, strums a ukulele in the cafeteria, laughs when there are no jokes, and dances when there is no music. The whole school, not exactly a "hotbed of nonconformity," is stunned by her, including our 16-year-old narrator Leo Borlock: "She was elusive. She was today. She was tomorrow. She was the faintest scent of a cactus flower, the flitting shadow of an elf owl."

That sounds a lot like Bree's story to me.


Revelation of fakeness?

I think the information cited there is tenuous at best. A forum post by someone claiming to be the creator and an article claiming that some fans have found where the e-mails came from is not proof. Marsman57 14:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  • That's her "Offical" forum 71.34.187.142 16:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying that I think she is real, I'm just saying that the proof doesn't come as 'official' to me. Additionally, where is the proof that lg15 supports the site? I'm just saying... Marsman57 21:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"She isn't notable enough..."

Lonelygirl15 has so many articles about her. here ill do your research for you (not incl the links above).. (http://www.populationstatistic.com/archives/2006/08/03/the-great-lonelygirl15-debate/) (http://tv.wizbangblog.com/2006/08/01/the-cult-of-the-lonely-girl.php) (http://www.jackyan.com/blog/2006/08/lonelygirl15s-selling-something.html) (http://www.trendcentral.com/trends/trendarticle.asp?tcArticleId=1649) anyways she is like this generations thing to talk about (for now...) but still i think there should be a wikipedia article about it. she is widely know by people using the internet, just as famous as that kid who danced in his room with a lightsaber. She is notable!--203.122.193.244 12:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


Proof it is fake.

http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/002277.html

The God Who Wasn't There http://imdb.com/title/tt0455507/ Documentary filmmaker Brian Flemming examines the Bible and discusses the history of early Christianity, raising doubts as to whether the New Testament personage Jesus ever really existed. Flemming examines the similarity of the Jesus story to other savior myths of the time and points to inexplicable gaps in early Christian history that combine to shed doubt on the Bible's Jesus story.

Danielle (2007) Also Known As: The Beast (USA) (working title) http://imdb.com/title/tt0433338/ When her father, a biblical scholar, mysteriously disappears, a Christian high-school student named Danielle investigates. She discovers that he had stumbled across a cover-up of Christianity's best-kept secret: That Jesus Christ never existed. Now that she possesses proof of this dangerous fact, Danielle confronts two strong forces: A band of fundamentalist Christians who will stop at nothing to suppress the truth, and her own desire for Jesus Christ to be real. The Beast dives into factual territory well-explored by scholars but largely hidden from the view of the public.

When her father, a biblical scholar, mysteriously disappears, a Christian high school student named Danielle investigates. She discovers that he had stumbled across a cover-up of Christianity's best-kept secret: That Jesus Christ never existed.

= Promotion for two upcoming movies. Which all adds up to a great promotion that should be recorded and filed away because it is pure genius. Plus here is a clip of the first movie this promotion is for, I believe she is in the clip, only less dolled up, here is said clip http://www.thegodmovie.com/clip-TheGap.php. Xanaxbarz 10:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the guy from that website, the movie is still in pre-production with the main parts not even being cast, he denies involvement in the hoax himself, and other people have said that the actress isn't the same.--BigCow 00:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The 28 August, 2006 issue of New York Magazine features an article titled "Hey There, Lonelygirl; One cute teen's online diary is probably a hoax. It's also the birth of a new art form." This is an internationally-prominent magazine. Are you convinced yet that this meets Wikipedia's guidelines? TimB 05:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Further to the article in The Times, certainly one of the most widely read newspapers in the world, not just Britain, lonelygirl15 has also been the subject of a feature on ITV News - the flagship news programme, during primetime, on the UK's most popular commercial channel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.30.182 (talkcontribs) August 28, 2006

Just let the damn article be posted. People come to Wikipedia looking for information about everything, pop culture included. If this isn't a good repository of information about an internet phenomenon then what is. There have been articles in New York magazine, the Times of London, a blog in the New York Times, New York Newsday, and she has spawned numerous imitators.

In Hollywood People Magazine

http://youtube.com/watch?v=U30LunfSbO4&watch_response -- She was on the cover of Hollywood Daily "People" magazine, and had a feature. The video included is evidence. If anyone is still using that lame "not covered in media" excuse, I'd just like this to be more evidence against that. This needs its own article. Certainly more than "Tubcat." 65.30.40.87 20:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well. Daily Hollywood People Magazine is really not the of the same calibre as People Magazine, but it's more than nothing. I won't pass judgement on the quality of that coverage or whether it reaches the bar set by WP:RS because it's also "trivial". There's a screen-cap of one of her videos on the cover along with a dozen other YouTube videos. Plus, the article is about YouTube, not lonelygirl15. There's a quote about her (though not by name) and nothing else.
Maybe it counts as coverage. I'll let others consider that point though. — Saxifrage 07:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

List of media coverage, from AFD discussion

it's been mentioned in multiple media sources, a small sample of which are here:

  1. New York Times, 25 August, "Today in Business"
  2. Chicago Tribune, 23 August, "Shoot From The Clip"
  3. New York Magazine, 28 August, by Adam Sternbergh "Hey There, Lonelygirl"
  4. New York Newsday, 17 August, by Megan Chan "Channeling into a new generation"
  5. Denver Post, 1 August, "Click These"
  6. Alameda Times-Star, 23 July, by Candace Murphy "Today's kids have their own outlets for creativity"
  7. The Times of London, 19 August, by Jonathan Richards "Worldwide acclaim for lonely girl"
  8. AgoraVox, 21 August, by Matthew Ingram "What Is YouTube Good For?"
  9. Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, 6 August, (trans) "The Webcam Generation has a new star: "Lonelygirl15. But is she authentic?"

It's notable enough to make it into print media, it can be verified, and Wikipedia is in a position to be ahead of the curve in writing about topics like this, not behind it. I'm with the New York Times on this one.--BigCow 17:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment, several of those could probably be considered trivial coverage, but #3 and #7 (both linked from the article) are not... the are full writeups on the subject.--Isotope23 17:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, #9 is also entirely about the subject, and questions its authenticity. A rough translation can be read here.TimB 17:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed

I've added some video references and fixed the Brian Flemming reference. I've also added a lot of {{citation needed}} tags to various statements that I think should be very easy to source given all the media coverage that people have dug up. — Saxifrage 20:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we don't need citations for bits of information that are independently verifiable by the reader (i.e. by watching the video themselves). Information that is inherent to its own existence is, well, a "fact" and doesn't require citation. You know, the sky is blue, sugar is sweet, etc.TimB 23:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Something that is only verifiable by the reader (i.e. without a source) is called WP:OR. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 02:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The item is its own source as evidence of its existence. Are you telling me that an entry's description of the plot of a novel or a scene in a movie requires an external source? That's absurd. WP:OR is about the exact opposite: publishing information that does *not* have its genesis in the public sphere and is thus privileged to the editor.TimB 03:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
There are numerous distinct videos. It's not quite comparable to a novel, more like a series of novels. Surely we can attribute them to specific videos using {{cite video}} and a link to the appropriate video. — Saxifrage 04:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
No, it's rather comparable to a television programme with multiple episodes, and the first ten television programmes I came up with off the top of my head and searched for here at WP have no cited sources for describing episodic plot elements-- and television episodes, especially those not yet available on home video, are far less instantly reader-verifiable than videos freely-available on YouTube. Let's save our citation tagging for the external issues revolving around the episodes on YouTube, and let the episodes speak for themselves.TimB 04:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
That's not a good argument. To say that other articles are poorly-written does not justify this article being poorly written. I say it again: it should be easy to cite these things. When it is easy, why are we not doing it? — Saxifrage 17:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The_Wire_(TV_series) is poorly written? It's a featured article -- and the plot is described without citations, as citations aren't necessary for simple plot descriptions. Arrested_Development -- also a featured article. I'm not arguing that other articles aren't poorly written, and thus this one can be, I'm arguing that well-written, recognized articles do not require citing external sources for independently-verifiable data. If, for example, YouTube were to disappear tomorrow, or Lonelygirl15 were to delete her account, then the necessity for citing sources about events that took place in the videos would be vital. Until that happens, we need to concern ourselves with the surrounding debate, and cataloguing media reference to said debate.TimB 19:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, okay, I see what you mean. I didn't mean plot summaries or anything like that. I mean that specific points or observations relevant to the controversy ("Shakespearean in nature") need citations.
As for the trivia section, well, I'm opposed to trivia sections in general, but if we're going to bother highlighting small particular things about the videos we might as well do the extra work to mention it properly and give a cite. I don't think this is a big deal though. The important part is the stuff apart from the trivia or plot. — Saxifrage 19:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have equipment capable of slowing down a video to listen to it carefully. But the most recent video posted (9/20) concerns Bree learning to drive. In it, she mentions some kind of Order. Maybe someone could help decipher more of what she said by using such equipment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.190.58.246 (talkcontribs)

Wikipedia isn't the place to do or discuss original research. (It's against our No original research core policy, because of the inherent nature of an encyclopedia.) You'll have better luck at one of the many dedicated forums on this topic. — Saxifrage 01:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Tags / References etc.

Hi there - I'm in agreement with TimB above, so have removed some of the tags that seemed either misplaced or uneccessary. Citations are vital to support credibility, but when the credibility is not obviously in question (ie. she has a purple monkey) - their overuse detracts from the clarity, readability and quality of the article. If you question the credibility of any info whatsoever, then say that here, and throw the tags back on - and thanks for your help with the article anyways! Cheers, Petesmiles 10:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The citation needed tag is not supposed to be used when the credibility is in question. That's what {{verify source}} is for, or removing it and bringing it to the Talk page for discussion. The citation needed template is for exactly that: when the article needs a citation in order to be considered a good article. See "How to ask for citations" at Wikipedia:Citing sources. — Saxifrage 17:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the two tags that you removed, here is what I think needs citing in those cases.
  1. "...almost Shakespearean in nature"

    This is a qualitative statement, so we need to say who has said that it's almost Shakespearean in nature.

  2. "domain name was registered a month before...her "strict" parents allow her...to spend time alone with Daniel ...further fuel speculation that Lonelygirl15 is a fictional creation"

    Why are we saying these particular things in this sentence as opposed to other things? When we make a very specific statement like this, it needs to be cited to a source.

I know these things are true or have been said. That you or I know them doesn't mean they don't need to be cited. — Saxifrage 17:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
"almost shakespearean in nature" was said by youtube user, gohepcat, in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7jRsPqwjj0. In the same video, he points out that her website was registered a month before her first video. He flashes a screen shot of the registration, to prove his point. However, the NYT magazine article also states this. The NYT article is linked above, and I can find a link to the NPR podcast, if there is still debate on the subject.
Singlewordedpoem 04:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Perfect, yes. Actually, it's already been included by someone else in the article as a citation for that statement, which was my intention when I added the {{citation needed}} tags. — Saxifrage 06:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"LONELYGIRL15" Trademark Pending...

It seems there is a trademark, and the first use in commerce date matches her first video airing. Read more here... http://www.lonelygirl15.com/forum/read.php?2,2137,page=1

Page 3 is worth a look at, too.

Someone should restore the reference link on the trademark reference. It used to go to the right page to enter the serial number and have the serial number mentioned in the link title. Someone replaced this with a direct link to the search results from their session. These links only last for a few minutes, they are not permanent. You can not link to a permanent address on the uspto site.

Videos aren't recorded in advance

This video has Bree quoting some specific posts with their content and making a video based upon them, establishing that they aren't all scripted/recorded in advance. Also of possible interest: The three cookies are rated 10, 12, and 06. Not just 6, but 06. The obvious interpretation seems to be 10/12/06, or October 12th, 2006, which also happens to be Alastair Crowley's birthday, which would also tie into the upcoming "religious ceremony". I believe it would also be helpful to describe the "plot arc" of the videos in the article itself.--BigCow 07:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I am reminded of Lost. Anyway, keep in mind the Wikipedia:no original research rule. — Saxifrage 23:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
She doesn't mention specific posts, she mentions specific posters. Even still these could be filmed as pickup shots more recently and edited into the video. Also, at the beginning of this video Daniel is sitting on the bed reading a recent Entertainment Weekly with the cover shown, but many speculate that the magazine cover is edited in to make it appear recent. The way Daniel holds the magazine is a bit unnatural (held straight up with no fingers over the cover), and the lighting of the cover doesn't match anything else. -Asriel 03:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Worth Noting Maybe? "Alistair Cookie"

Cookie Monster used to poke fun at Masterpiece Theatre as Alistair Cookie, a take the name of Alistair Cooke, the shows presenter. But, if you contextualize that within the reference of cookie rating and lonelygirl15, the Aleister Crowley connection seems even more valid, even if its silly. Also, being related to Masterpiece Theatre, a show made of episodic TV miniseries, seems to speak of the same pattern we have seen so far due to the nature of how vlogging works. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.107.15 (talk)

Seems like a bit too much of a stretch to me, I think it's more likely that the reference was independent of whatever joke Sesame Street did a decade ago. --BigCow 23:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

DanielBeast at Myspace

DanielBeast on Myspace as linked in the article is not the 'real' or 'official' DanielBeast Myspace page. There doesn't appear to be one.

There's a spin-off LG15 forum here (already reffed in the media btw) where this is made clear. Hakluyt bean 19:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of dispute about linking to MySpace because it's usually impossible to verify that the person is the same. Without proof that the MySpace account is held by the YouTube user, it shouldn't appear in the article. — Saxifrage 20:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. That's why I removed the link previously. There is a source for the admission that the DanielBeast on Myspace is fake. It can be found in the spin-off forums where username "hyemew" has admitted creating it to catch 'posers' and the issue has been put to bed. I should note that the forum is referenced by, and the admin of the forum is named by, the journalist covering the story at http://screens.blogs.nytimes.com so it is presumably considered a reliable source (so far as journalism goes :)).
It might also be noted that the DanielBeast on youtube does not link to the DanielBeast on Myspace, and neither does lonelygirl15 on youtube.Hakluyt bean 14:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I see the article atm links to: "Alleged danielbeast on MySpace- complete with "behind the scenes" blog". Alleged by whom? It is asserted meanwhile (in boring detail) in the forums referenced above that it is actually a fake, specifically a ruse: to expose wannabees and imposters (amusingly) and to sleuth after the real identity of LG15. It is not alleged to be real by the youtube accounts of danielbeast or lonelygirl15. A little contradictorily, I note below that nothing coming out of the forums is v reliable :) However imo 'alleged' is wrong. I think 'disputed' would be better. I'd change it but I can see there are a lot of editors with an interest already.Hakluyt bean 19:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed the wording as all the evidence points to it being a fan site (see above). There is no evidence to the contrary. Hakluyt bean 15:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh hum, someone appears to have confirmed that it is indeed a fan site but their wording is unhelpful; I'm not sure it's encyclopedic to refer to the creator as a 'star', espec. given the various apparent motives behind it (see above). Changed it to fan site. If they want to further advertize they can do it on the Myspace page itself, I'd have thought. I can't believe I'm spending all this time on this thing ....:) Hakluyt bean 19:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

She is fake!

See: http://www.argn.com/archive/000456lonelygirl15_the_end_or_the_beginning.php

Maybe, but we need to wait for the facts: who, how, why etc. Hakluyt bean 19:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Tons of new info (she is fake)

Someone needs to take this info and put it into this article:

http://screens.blogs.nytimes.com/ http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-lonelygirl31aug31,1,653379.story http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-lonelygirl5sep05,1,7869367.htmlstory?coll=la-entnews-quicktakes http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-lonelygirl8sep08,0,5310001.story?coll=la-home-entertainment —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.31.9.226 (talkcontribs) .

Not affiliated with CAA

The L.A. Times article says that LonelyGirl15 comes out of the server of Creative Artists Agency (CAA). This is highly unlikely. I've worked with agencies, including CAA, and they're all so busy that there is no way they would assign personell to work on some minor production such as LG15, assuming of course that it is a production by one of their clients.

Actually, with confirmed millions of LonelyGirl15 viewers, this production is anything but "minor." It's a gigantic phenomena. I too have worked with and for large agencies. This is just the kind of project CAA would utilize some resources for a client on.--Marriedtofilm 12 September 2006

That the spokesman for CAA neither confirmed nor denied that they repped LG15 is a bit odd, though I suspect that the rep kept it in the air out of a sense of fun more than anything else. Usually, an agency will state outright whether someone is a client or not—and they would have no problem denying their involvement in a project, if a client were to ask them to. I'm betting that at CAA, they are aware of the LG15 controversy, are aware that people now think that they're involved in it, and are milking it for all they can with friends and clients, until and if the perennial shoe drops.

That LG15 is performance art is quite likely—Bree's hermetic refusal to acknowledge all the buzz her posts have stirred is the give-away. But that she's repped by CAA—and that CAA is working on the production—is just a little too farfetched. Even if they were trying to break a client, the LG15 thing has been going on for three months now: Agencies like CAA don't have that sort of patience. --TallulahBelle 13:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed the CAA connection is most unlikely, for many logical reasons. But some of that is reflected in the article atm, as also is noted the lack of evidence, and it is headed 'speculation', so... as it is phrased right now I think it's ok. Hakluyt bean 14:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
WELL, WELL, WELL. It turns out CAA IS INVOLVED AFTER ALL. Please don't report "Not affiliated with CAA" when you don't know the fact. You look... well ... stupid in the end.
Interestingly, not in the straightforward way that you suggest, if you read the article. Try not to confuse hindsight with logic, particularly when the former is premature. And try not to abuse editors although I suppose your target above is as anonymous as you are so perhaps all's fair... Hakluyt bean 14:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Creators

I think that the message from the admin establishes pretty well that she is "apparently" a fictional creation. What exactly are you waiting for? I seek consensus on keeping the article as though it were still a mystery. Pablosecca 17:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Real or not is immaterial—she is a genuine media phenomenon. The Superman character isn't real either, but look at the article.

I agree with the comment below, Pablosecca is trying to eliminate the article in an underhanded way. --TallulahBelle 20:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Pablosecca, all of the information about the message board post from "the creators" was already in the article. There was, as far as I could tell, no reason for you to delete so much of the article, especially since most of it was sourced.
No details have emerged yet which prove one way or another what/who is behind Lonelygirl15. I suggest we all try exercising a little patience. Document the facts and little details as they come in, but avoid jumping to hasty conclusions. Serpent-A 20:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I´m not trying to eliminate the article. I think lonelygirl15 should definitely stay as an article, and so I emphasize I´m not questioning its right to exist. But her status is surely fictional, isn´t it, and the article should reflect that. I don´t think it reflects it nearly enough as reality shows. From whom are you waiting for confirmation, the Pope?

Dont you think it´s pretty stupid to treat this like it´s controversial? The active word should be "apparently" as in "she is apparently a fictional creation", which was the wording I used.68.237.24.102 21:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

lonelygirl15.com

I think it could be made clearer than the article has it atm that lonelygirl15.com is not an 'official' site at all. The attached forums and anything said there are, well, unofficial. To be rigorous about it, I think the idea that it is fake is just as speculative (for now) as the idea that it is real. As far as I can make out the only 'official' sources of information are the youtube pages of lonelygirl15 & danielbeast and any videos produced on youtube under those account names. Otherwise we await a clear statement to the media, which we have not had....

I might also point out that it seems the admins of the official forums (lonelygirl15.com) are pretty well the same people who are admins at the 'unofficial forums' ( http://alissabrooke.proboards56.com/ ) who it seems are responsible for the fake DanielBeast page at Myspace (see discussion above) who are also responsible for the CAA 'ip trace' and subsequent 'story' (see discussion above). Added up, there doesn't seem anything reliable coming out of the forums. Particularly given the obscene posts there recently. In short there seems to be quite a lot of fooling around... Hakluyt bean 18:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Is www.lonelygirl15.com down? I just checked the www.lonelygirl15.com and received the simple message: "This IP address cannot be used for browsing." Perhaps something's up with my computer, but I've viewed the site from this computer yesterday. I also did a tracert/whois to see where the webserver is located--look at this summary: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ipall.ch?domain=66.226.27.41 Apparently Monterey Park, California... The 'unofficial forum' mentioned above (http://alissabrooke.proboards56.com/) is also down. ~Steve128.205.23.13 22:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

deleting again

Some retard has gone and deleted 90% of the content from the page. The last deletion vote was UNANIMOUS KEEP. So some fool thinks he'll get around it by hand deleting most of the article. Well that person is an ass.

September 9, 2006 -- I've found that someone edits out whatever I add to the entry as well. I believe it's clear this activity is being done by the Hollywood marketers of the movie(s) in question.

Additions that are original research will be cut ruthlessly and as many times as necessary. Also, identify yourself, don't just go by your IP number. --TallulahBelle 23:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Material relating the YouTube user named "LonesomeOctober", who has created high-qulaity videos spoofing lonelygirl15, has been deleted from the main article (CORRECTION--sorry it wasn't deleted--it was MOVED to another heading--a decision in retrospect which may indeed be the right one). It is understood that the allegations of LonesomeOctober's linkage to this are nebulous, but the evidence is mounting and it probably SHOULD be recorded. There are distinct ties not only to the whole lonelygirl15 production, but also to the central horror myths being explored by the lonelygirl saga. "A Night in the Lonesome October" is a horror novel by Roger Zelazny--one point of connection to the aura of the occult surrounding the entire lonelygirl phenomenon. Various characters in the Zelazny book have familiars--animals with human-level intelligence--and the connection to the "Purple Monkey" character in both lonelygirl15 and LonesomeOctober's videos is clear. The username also refers to lonelygirl's OWN username (lonesome = lonely) as well as Aleister Crowley's birthday (October 12th). Add to this the fact that the user LonesomeOctober has had no existance or posting record on YouTube until this "reveal" of lonelygirl as a hoax, that the production quality of the videos is as high as lonelygirl's, AND the fact that various props from lonelygirl's videos have also appeared in these LonesomeOctober videos and you have the beginnings of a compelling case for a connection--at least enough to start recording the evidence.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.79.84.153 (talk.


September 13th deletions - key information from the creators in the LA Times controverting the claims that the videos were shot all at once has been deleted from the main article. It makes totally no sense to preserve the "previous claim" information without the controverting statements they've given since (that new videos were only shot after each previous one was posted). Also deleted is information from the LA Times about the location of the video shoot--which contradicts the widely held belief that a professional studio was used. This is IMPORTANT information to this story and its deletion was kind of dumb. Although the info came from a copyrighteed source (the LA Times) it was paraphrased and not a direct quote.

Enough with the original research!!!!

This article is for facts, not research. Please, people, keep that in mind. --TallulahBelle 23:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this article seems to be attracting a lot of conspiracy theorists and others who can't seem to resist adding their own ideas as to what this is all about. Serpent-A 00:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Define original research. I haven't seen anything here that is inappropriate. Please keep in mind that this article describes a current event and information develops rapidly. Should wikipedia only cover things that happened 5 years ago, so we may develop a body of articles and journal articles regarding lonelygirl15 to cite?

I note that Encyclopedia Britannica's articles are often written by those with experience or knowledge in the field writing about things they have first hand knowledge of. In this case, we have people reporting on things they have personally observed in the videos. Why should they not be allowed to describe them? These articles so far have been well constructed to allow someone searching on this topic to read a brief synopsis of the key points regarding this topic. And down with your 'sign-this' fascism. It's not like you are using a real name. I could make up a fake name like you and what would that prove? User:Donald Duck

See WP:OR for more information on why you can't use original research. I disagree in some respects, but it makes sense for the ordiliness of the encyclopedia. Post your conspiracy theories elsewhere. Livejournal is a good staring point. Marsman57 01:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I still haven't seen anything that is 'original research' according to the wiki guidelines, that's why I asked for the definition. Apparently some of you have your own personal definition of original research. Let's have some specific examples of why things are being deleted. Things that have cites and link to source material are being deleted. I ask about this and some people say 'original research will be deleted'. It's pretty obvious you are deleting things that are NOT original research, and then saying afterwards that that is why you deleted it. That seems like bullshit to me. Look, you delete something, you explain here what it was and why you deleted it. If you are deleting things with sources without providing justification, you need to be banned. Yeah, I'm looking at you Tallulah.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.158.119.42 (talkcontribs) .

Something can have a source and still be original research. For instance, when a statement contains things that aren't in the original source, or require interpretation of the source, that's original research. Right now, the article says:
The very fact that LonesomeOctober has come out with such high quality videos, in such a short time, and has no other presence on YouTube, is suspicious in and of itself. As is the username itself, since it invokes both the month of Crowley's birthday, October, as well as "Lonesome"--a word which pairs quite neatly with "Lonelygirl". The novel A Night in the Lonesome October, by science fiction writer Roger Zelazny, is also a story of occultism and prominently features "Familiars", which in the novel are animals raised to human-level intelligence. Purple Monkey, a stuffed toy which appears in both the Lonelygirl15 videos and those by LonesomeOctober, would fit the novel's general definition of a Familiar.
That's an excellent example of original research. It contains statements and information that is collected from various places ("research") and put together in a way that has not been published before ("original").
Adding a source wouldn't necessarily fix this either. If a link to LonesomeOctober's videos was included, this wouldn't back up the quality of the research or even most of the truth of the statements, it would only be a link to what's being talked about. The kind of source that would make this not original research is one in which the same statements are made in the same combination, with the same meaning conveyed. That way, all that we're including in the article is "person X said statement(s) Y" with a citation to where. That kind of "X said Y in publication Z" is the only kind of thing that the No Original Research rule allows in articles.
(And, to cover that objection before anyone makes it: no, that rule isn't followed in every article as it should be. That's not a reason to be sloppy here—that's a reason to fix the other articles.)
The nice thing about avoiding original research is that it turns an otherwise mediocre article into a very tight and high-quality article quickly. When an article has no original research, it contains facts that readers can quickly see are reliable, and it doesn't tend to contain statements that will make some readers raise their eyebrows and think we're full of it. It's just good for the article. It also makes the article read in a much more imparitial (and therefore more authoritative) manner. — Saxifrage 04:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like things are pretty close to being solved (if not already). Hopefully we can start getting rid of all of the "speculation" stuff and trim down the article soon. It's getting pretty bloated at this point. WarpstarRider 03:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

She is fake!

[2]

Weasel Words?

What are the weasel words that the warning on the article's main page warns about? I can't find any discussion about that here in the talk page... Lijil 21:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

People post that weasel words crap on all kinds of articles just because they it makes them feel smug. Words like 'seems', or 'should' are supposed to be weasel words. I agree with you 100% that if some jackass wants to claim weasel words, he should say specifically which ones he means on the discussion page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.158.119.42 (talkcontribs) .

I'm the one who put the "weasel words" flag on the article. What it means is, people are putting original research and/or opinions and/or unsubstantiated claims in language that implies a factual basis for the statement, even though there is none. For instance, the phrasing "speculation exists that" is the perfect example of weasel wording. With the "Specualtion Exists" preamble, one can conceivably write and include anything in the article. "Specualtion exists that Santa Claus is real"; "Speculation exists that LonelyGirl15 is actually an animatronic puppet operated by several hand monkeys"; and so on. This article is rife with weasel wording by people trying to express what they think or surmise about LG15. --TallulahBelle 12:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I see your point - the whole speculation section is terrible. I'm assuming there'll be ample opportunity to clean the article up when this has all died down a bit though. Lijil 21:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Section 3.4: Alleged Confession -- duplicate coverage of "The Creators"

The new section "Alleged Confession" (section 3.4) discusses the statement from "The Creators", but this is already dealt with under "lonelygirl15.com" (section 2).--GagHalfrunt 12:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Section "What's Bree"

I removed this section just now because it is irrelevant to the article. The name hasn't been paid much attention to in the videos. If they are real, the origin of her name is irrelevant anyway. (Brad Pitt doesn't have a section on the origins of "Brad," for example.) If it is fiction, the choice of name is not relevant either, unless "Bree" makes a point of discussing it in the videos. PMC 23:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually the choice of names in fiction CAN be important but I agree that it probably isn't particularly in this case. So I'm happy with the deletion. Lijil 12:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Top of the tube updated with more info, someone should add it.

That webstie top of the tube added her full bio including her middle name age where she trained etc. It seems the only what to have it.


Pictures of Jessica Rose

I doubt the picture with Jessica Rose smoking is of the best of tastes. Can it be deleted?

Please sign your posts. And why is the smoking in poor taste?Brokethebank 01:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Possibly because you clearly uploaded and posted that particular photo, out of the dozens of other options you may have chosen, to portray her in a negative light, as your clear derision of the entire phenomenon and those who were fans of it would lead one to suspect. More importantly, both the photos you uploaded and added to the article are copyvios without a good fair use rationale and are already tagged for deletion, not to mention poorly placed in the article from an aesthetic standpoint. - 154.20.6.20 06:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
(EDIT: Removing personal attack) the three photos I posted were the only options I had, getting them as I did from Silicon Valley Watcher -- only later did I hear of the Photobucket photos. Second, I have no derision for this phenomenon, but have instead enjoyed my time following the sleuthing and adding to it myself. Third, I don´t understand how the photos can be violations, as they all have a fair use rationale, which you can see if you click on them. Fourth, as for the aesthetics, I thought they were fine: if someone wants to change them, let them -- although these questions of taste seem pretty misguided to me -- I don´t remember any Wiki "how to" being written on the subject of "taste". If I have any derision, it´s for people who allow themselves a bizarre emotional investment into these news items -- some people seemed positively heartbroken and in denial that this video series was "fake" -- I prefer the more neutral word "fictional" -- and furthermore seemed willing to turn this thing into a moral question of some strange kind, ie, we were manipulated, mislead, cheated, etc. Oy gevalt, people. Brokethebank 10:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Please keep it civil and lay off the personal attacks. --Tim1988 talk 11:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  1. I have clicked on them. That's how I know they're tagged for deletion, and will be deleted, as the fair use rationale isn't good enough, there's no source, and there already is fair-use screenshot of Jessica in the article.
  2. I think the Wiki "how to" you should consult is called WP:STYLE. A bunch of small photos crammed together at the top of the article looks shoddy and amateurish.
  3. This isn't the place to deride people and smugly announce "I knew it!", as you did in your message above as well. Go find an LG15 message board for that.
  4. This isn't a message board. Insulting me for not being a registered user is contrary to the entire Wiki philosophy. Everything you need to know about my history here can be found by looking at my contribution history, just as I can see from your contribution history that the only thing you've seemed really passionate about on Wikipedia before this are articles about punching girls in the stomach. - 154.20.6.20 21:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
(EDIT: Removing personal attack) Brokethebank 23:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Change this page's title back to 'lonelygirl15'!!

This article's focus is on the internet phenomenon that is 'lonelygirl15', not on the actress allegedly portraying her. I say 'allegedly' because we're not sure that's her real name. And we know very little about Jessica to name the article after her. She should not have an article of her own until her identity has been certified.

Xander 02:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The evidence that she is Jessica Rose is strong, but it's still not definitive, and the article is still about the character she plays, not the actress. InterruptorJones 02:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
And even if it IS Jessica Rose, this article should remain as lonelygirl15. I agree with Xander, the article isn't about the actress, it's about the character/phenomenon. - seinman 02:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
While there's no more doubt that the actress in question is Jessica Lee Rose, I agree that it should stay lonelygirl15, since the page is about that character (cf. listing Chief Wiggum as separate from Hank Azaria). Although I think it's arguable now to make a page for Ms Rose by herself, even if it's very short ("is the actress best known for portraying lg15 on youtube &c &c"). Do you all think she should have her own page as an actress? 68.237.24.102 03:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Ever since virtually the entire world reported that Kate Beckinsale had been cast as Wonder Woman based on an April Fools joke on joblo... I'm having trouble believing pretty much everything regarding entertainment news. Unless it comes from Variety (which were the only ones who bothered checking out the autencity of the Wonder Woman story)... Maybe... Let's wait until someone tracks down Jessica herself and have her fess up before we actually elimimate all doubt. Should happen prety soon now anyway, she'll probably be invited to some talk show before too long. And yeah, this was kinda off topic but yeah... Djungelurban (not logged in), 14 September 2006 (UTC))

Can that rather sophisticated looking photo of her, taken by (the probably soon to be unemployed for breaking an NDA) Grant Steinfeld, which appeared on the NY Times website be included? - http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/09/12/us/600_lonely.jpg It has this great "movie star waiting between takes" feel to it, especially in that wide ratio.

Other Speculation -- Original Research & Analysis

Speculation exists regarding the music choices through out the video series; namely, the use of smaller unsigned bands to score each film. The addition of Band Name, Song Title, and Band website added to each video description further points to the assertion that these films are a marketing vehicle, not for a movie, but rather for CAA's unsigned music acts. The videos are simply a viral method to develop a fan base and following making acts more appealing to large label R&D executives. The eclectic nature of the music – strong variance in style, genre, and tempo, is in stark contrast to a girl who is homeschooled and otherwise insulated from the workings of pop music culture.

This looks like original research to me, but beyond that the last two sentences are obviously biased ("viral method") and offer synthesis via conclusions that don't exhibit a strong logical connection. I'm removing. /Blaxthos 07:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

suggest category:living people

I'm not doing it myself because I'm not sure if there's policy on this, but it looks like this article is serving as the de facto article on Jessica Rose, so I think it should have Category:Living people attached. --Allen 18:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that someone has made a seperate article on Jessica Lee Rose, though I don't know if it would survive a potential vote for deletion. Serpent-A 00:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Already been redirected. Hbdragon88 06:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think redirecting "Jessica Rose" to lonelygirl15 is a good option. Jessica Rose is NOT lonelygirl15 and redirecting is like making Timothy Dalton redirect to James Bond. Admittedly Timothy Dalton has a more varied and famed career than Jessica Rose has at this point, but still, there's a severe logical error in this redirect. I think Jessica Rose should either have an extremely brief entry "Jessica Rose is an actress who is best known for portraying lonelygirl15" - or none at all. This article should NOT be the de facto Jessica Rose article - it should be about the fictional character lonelygirl15. Lonelygirl15 is NOT a living person, however, Jessica Rose is. Lijil 07:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
But Jessica Rose has no notability besides her being Lonelygirl15. That's who she is. That's how we know her. That's why Patsy Ramsey redirects into JonBenet Ramsey. Hbdragon88 07:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Another example is Jeff Veasey being a redirect to GameFAQs, the website he founded. WarpstarRider 07:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Patsy Ramsey DOESN'T redirect to JonBenet Ramsey! I take the Jeff Veasey point though, and agree that Jessica Rose isn't yet notable enough for an article aside from lonelygirl15. Lijil 15:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh. Well, it was a redirect until just recently, but I'm sure it will be soon be merged back in - there's nothing in the Patsy article that isn't already included in the JonBenet one. Hbdragon88 19:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I think this article shouldn't be in any of the people categories (living people, year of birth etc) because she is fictional. A good comparison would be Basil Fawlty and John Cleese. --kingboyk 09:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The big difference is that while this article is primarily about the character, it also covers in some detail Jessica Rose since as discussed above, Jessica Rose doesn't currently have notability outside of lonelygirl15. Personally, I believe, although not extremely strongly, that it should be in the living person category. But even if it isn't, we I've reconsidered and decided it doesn't belong in the living person category. But please remember this article covers several living people in some detail including Jessica Rose and as in all case, we still must observe the policy completely when it comes to Jessica Rose. any living person. Nil Einne 11:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
If Jessica Rose isn't notable enough for her own article, I think it's OK that her article redirects to this one (that's not what I argued above, but I guess you've convinced me) but I don't think this article should only have very minimal information about Jessica Rose. I don't think this article can be in the living person category as lonelygirl15 clearly is not alive. Lijil 15:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Did you mean to say you do think this article should have only minimal info on Rose? --Allen 16:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Uh, yeah..... Actually I see now someone's changed the Jessica Rose article into a stub instead of a redirect. I guess I don't really mind much either way. Lijil 07:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please remember this is an encylopaedia

The article is somewhat getting out of hand with the amount of OR and unencylopaedic stuff being added. For example, I removed this:

On September 14th 2006 roughly 1:22am lonelygirl15 and cassieiswatching both last logged in on the site YouTube 1 hour prior.
Coincidence? maybe, but unlikely.

Nil Einne 11:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Cassie

Furthering the plot, a new video has been released, but this time not on Bree or Daniel's pages, on the ever mysterious 'Cassie' who it seems has some unfinished business to settle. It appears that the creators are effectively urging the audience to participate in discovering the twist hands-on. It already seems that one male on YouTube is to go to the location of the 'Swimming' video to unearth what has been shown in the most recent video, which dipicts an not-seen person throwing a sack into the lake which Bree swam in. The haunting voice of Cassie tells us to 'Come and get it" (or something similar). Many speculate that Daniel has had something to do with the possible murder of this girl. Others think that Bree's constant questioning about her could indicate that Cassie was part of the same religion as herself (thus why "Everyone was always to mean to her", as Bree comments) and that perhapes she too, was involved in a previous ceremony which Bree is now to take part in. The video's, which first seemed very innocent and lacking in any real storyline, now suddenly are loaded with subtle clues in each. There is no doubt that they are heading down a much darker route than what everyone first anticipated.

Cassie's video can be viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IcYUifgEfw or by searching: cassieiswatching

Thx :) Is this advertising? Hakluyt bean 19:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem :) I didn't mean for it to seem like advertising, just a fan updating anyone who cares!

Adding to this Cassie storyline, whoever is behind the "Cassie" youtube page has given everyone detailed maps and clues expecting people to go search for the bag that is dropped in the video. This has lead to a search by a few interested people, and one of them actually finding what they believe is the "bag" in question. It's thought that this is the creators turning this into an ARG, of sorts. Should this be mentioned into the article, or should we wait for the whole thing to flesh out more? BoBoCTiberius 19:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Shakespearean

The page says

As the series has aired, a story arc has emerged which — according to at least one critic — is almost Shakespearean in its nature.[4]

The source? A guy who posted a video of himself on youtube saying that it was "almost Shakespearean". Anyone can be a critic, but for an encyclopedia to say "at least one critic", they should speak of at a critic on a different level than a YouTube posting.

I removed the sentence.

--A Sunshade Lust 02:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Good on ya, I agree. Lijil 07:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Does LG15 have an illness?

She wears a bandaid on her outer left arm between her shoulder and elbow in one episode with heavy gauze. She sneaks out to the park with Daniel and when they get ready to go home she takes a pill. Daniel asks what she's taking and she says "an iron pill". Does she have cancer or anemia or something?

Possibly something to be revealed later.... 195.93.21.98 12:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

In response - It is thought that she has been giving blood for the ritual/ceremony that she is to take part in, or practising in some way. Iron tablets help replenish loss of blood, many women take them around menstration!

Just a comment on Miles Beckett.

I've seen multiple references that he's a medical school dropout, however, if you search for his California Medical License, he has one and must therefore already be an M.D. Thus, he must have finished Medical School and also part of a Medical Internship or Residency.

New page for Jessica Rose

Wikipedia seems to have turned in to a tabloid. This page which used to be about concrete happenings in the video blog of lonelygirl15, which was probably a legitimate page, has turned in to a place for stalkerish types to post rumor and hearsay about the actress who portrays her. It is time for someone with extra time and a knowledge of wikipedia editing techniques to go through this page and move all material about the actress Jessica Rose and place it on a new wiki page. All in favor?Criptofcorbin 04:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Rumors and such shouldn't be on any page at Wikipedia. The solution is simply a massive cleanup of this one article. Jessica Rose has no real notability not related to lonelygirl15, so she shouldn't have a separate page. WarpstarRider 04:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with you, she doesn't really deserve a page. I just figured I'd have someone create a page for her, move all the stuff, then I'd put it up for deletion.Criptofcorbin 04:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It would help if you follow the normal wikipedia practice of putting new comments/suggestions at the bottom... Nil Einne 11:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A new page for the actress Jessica Rose should be a no-brainer. lonelygirl15, or "Bree," is simply the character the actress is playing on a fictional video series of the same name. If Wikipedia displays the real actress Jessica Rose as the fictional character of "Bree," then we should change the Julie Andrews article title to Mary Poppins. Marriedtofilm 12:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • This has been stated repeatedly: You can not compare famous actors/actresses to a person whose sole claim to fame is starring in a series of internet videos. Without lonelygirl15 and all the controversy, she's nothing. I believe it's precedent to redirect for people whose only notability is in the context of an internet phenomenon they were involved in. I point to the Jeff Veasey/GameFAQs example I posted at the bottom of this page. WarpstarRider 23:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • WarpstarRider, there are thousands of less notable people who have Wikipedia articles. When you say "sole claim to fame is starring a series of internet videos," you forgot to add "videos that have been viewed by MILLIONS of people." She is the subject of a huge phenomena, not just a girl in an internet blog. And for "Without lonelygirl15 and all the controversy, she's nothing." What?? That's like saying, without the affair Monica Lewinsky had with Clinton, she's nothing (even the first sentence of Lewinki's article reads: Monica Samille Lewinsky (born July 23, 1973) is an American woman who was thrust into the limelight after having an affair with President Bill Clinton.) And this actress is no longer just a girl in a bunch of internet videos, but at last Google news count, there are over 500 current news articles about Jessica Rose. Your alleged criteria for a person having an article is inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia and seems to have just been invented by you and is only your opinion. Marriedtofilm 00:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I repeat, she is not notable outside of being lonelygirl15. The news articles "about Jessica Rose" are all about this video series, and mention her part in it; she has no significance on her own. WarpstarRider 00:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
        • To have an article, the main criteria is she's notable or famous, not HOW she became famous. Warp, do you have a crush on this woman and are resentful of her notoriety? Seriously. That's what you're looking like. It appears we're going to have to open a case. Marriedtofilm 00:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
        • And I just noticed MTV did an interview of her. - Jessica Rose Interview (print and video) on MTV She's now VERY FAMOUS. Give it up dude. Marriedtofilm 15 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I am not repeating my arguments. You simply asserting "She's really really extremely famous" doesn't change that the only famous thing here is lonelygirl15, not the person behind her. WarpstarRider 02:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Your argument doesn't hold water. lonelygirl15 is no longer the only famous thing here. SHE'S now famous. Media outlets are now doing interviews of her. Your argument is only "She's famous because of lonelygirl15" It doesn't matter what originally brought her notoriety. Her biography infor shouldn't be on a page about the video lonelygirl15, but on her own page. You are fighting a losing battle. User:MarriedtofilmUser_talk:Marriedtofilm 02:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
              • The interviews are about lonelygirl15. She has nothing outside of this fad, and it doesn't warrant a biography page. WarpstarRider 02:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
                • It doesn't matter if lonelygirl15 was the only thing to make her famous. The public is now interested in her, her backround, what other work she has done, that's why there's a Wikipedia article. It's very simple. (and IMDB already had a page of her so your "she has nothing outside of this fad" argument is mute)User_talk:Marriedtofilm 03:4/, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
                  • Does everyone with an IMDB page have an article here? No. And that one only has three listings for "makeup artist". There isn't anything else to say about her beyond the lonelygirl15 business, which is all in this article. WarpstarRider 04:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
                    • It doesn't matter. People are interested in this newly famous person that's the star of a video millions of people watched. That's why there's an article. Really, I'm wondering if you're resentful of this girl's notoriety. LIke with any previosly unknown lead actor in any movie or TV show (even with a fraction of viewers that LG15 got), they become famous thanks to product they starred in. People now want to know more about this person. You're only getting in the way. User:Marriedtofilm 04:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
                      • There is no need for an article on this person. There is nothing notable about her other than what is already covered here, and nothing else to make an article about. WarpstarRider 04:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
                        • Nothing else to make an article about??? Her backround, where she was born, where she grew up and was trained, her previous experience (even if it was minimal). Who are you to judge these things are "nothing else to make an article about"?? People want to know these things. Just becuase you don't doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't. And these are biographical items that belong in the article about the person, not in the article about the product that made them famous. User:Marriedtofilm 04:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
                          • There are plenty of things that "people want to know" that aren't needed in Wikipedia. AGAIN, the only thing of note that she's done is her role in this series, which is covered quite exhaustively in this article. A biographical article about this person is completely unneccessary. And I'd appreciate it if you stop throwing around your ridiculous accusations ("resentful of this girl's notoriety", "censorship", etc.). I'm just trying to keep all the unneeded info out of here; there's enough junk clogging up this article, it doesn't need to be spawning spinoff articles. WarpstarRider 05:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Your argument for censoring this article gets weaker with every response. That people want to learn about notable subjects the basis for Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if you think that an actress that starred in a video series that millions of people watched isn't a notable person. Whether you like it or not, she is. The pulbic is interested in learning more about her even if she hasn't done anything else of note. Just because you're not intersted in her life doesn't mean Wikipedia readers aren't. You're getting in their way. User_talk:Marriedtofilm 05:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • So, basically, as the first post of this section said, you want to turn Wikipedia into a tabloid. Whatever. Just knock it off with your "censorship" nonsense. Removing non-notable information is not "censorship," and that seems to be a common cry among people who continually try to insert such things in WP. I'm not getting anywhere with this argument, it'll have to be handled some other way. WarpstarRider 05:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It doesn't matter if people think of Jessica Lee Rose as a "tabloid" item. Go and delete the Paris Hilton article if you don't like articles about tabloid subjects. And a biography on an actress who stars in a video series that has millions of viewers IS notable information and deleting that biography is censorship. I do agree that we need other people to weigh in on this. User:Marriedtofilm 15 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Marriedtofilm, Warpstar is right. People like Jessica Rose who have no notability apart from their participation in a notable event just don't have articles at Wikipedia. Put the information in this article where it belongs. When she becomes famous in her own right, then she can have her own article. Wikipedia has no place for redundancy. — Saxifrage 15:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
        • My original post was made during the time when the identity of the actress was still mere speculation. People were using it as a kind of headquarters for uncited, "tabliodish", info on the girl they were still only assuming was lonelygirl15. Now that Jessica Rose has come out and done interviews admit to her role in the series, I have a slightly different view of the subject. I know feel there should be a subject in this article refering to Jessica Rose. Perhaps it would contain some of her past work and biographical history. It should not include any uncited rumors, hearsay, or speculation! That is not what this page it meant for. I don't think the Jessica Rose page should continue to exist. I still believe this page should be more dedicated to the actual series than the people behind it.Criptofcorbin 23:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I've been watching this story unfold for a few weeks -- and let's be honest, the unofficial burden of proof is with those who want to delete or prevent a Jessica Rose article -- at least that's the suggestion in the Admin's deletion guidelines. So if we err on the side of caution, that's a pretty easy hurdle for a Jessica Rose article to clear. Granted, her article shouldn't be particularly long, since she hasn't had a long career, but she should have an article. I don't really understand arguments that say "she doesn't have any notability besides having participated in a notable event" because how else is she supposed to have notability? Granted, she may have only done one extremely notable thing, but that's a lot more than can be said for almost everyone on the globe. Perhaps the lonelygirl15 article should be vaccumed of all info relating to the actors personally, and this info should be placed on their respective pages. Pablosecca 09:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Consider the case of Danny Lloyd. Remember him? Really only one credit, but one very prominent one -- but does that mean he should be deleted? What I think is going on here is that the brave new world of internet vlogs and new media, what with their DIY esprit, have people feeling like they are essentially insubstantial somehow -- and (in this instance) not until Ms Rose gets a movie or TV deal will she be "notable". Pablosecca 09:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It is clearly a disputed action to convert the other article to a redirect to this one, so take it to WP:AFD instead. Cowman109Talk 22:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone did. WarpstarRider reverted it [3]. The page is now fully protected, so let's commence some converstaion instad of edit warring. Hbdragon88 23:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys -- I suggest that the Jessica Rose page be nominated for deletion. I'm actually in support of a separate page for Ms Rose, and I think that a deletion vote should establish its legitimacy (as I think it would pass the vote). Cheers. Pablosecca 09:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you're probably right. I know that I would vote keep in a case of a deletion proposal. I think it's almost beyond doubt that Jessica Rose is going to get at least a few more acting roles in the future; she's probably getting all sorts of scripts as we speak. Serpent-A 10:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Jessica Rose should have a seperate article in addition to the one about LonelyGirl15. Arguments about not being that notable could be made for any a number of famous people from years gone by. Howard Brown for example, who's fame is only to do with the fact he appeard is commericals for a British bank. It could be argued that Gary Coleman, Todd Bridges and Dana Plato only did one major thing, but you don't see there pages being deleted because their is already an article about Diff'rent Strokes. 152.163.100.197 18:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. Rose is exclusively known through her lonelygirl15 identity. Television shows are a completely different criteria - those are notable productions and the actors around them are usually notable. Besdies that, Coleman also ran for the office of California governor. Bridges was the "first black child actor to hvae a recurring role on a hit series." Plato is notable for her work as a child actor before Different Strokes. Brown has dubious notability and it was also nomianted for deletion before. Hbdragon88 23:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Hbdragon88, "Television shows are a completely different criteria - those are notable productions and the actors around them are usually notable." Got news for you, Hbdrago88, lonelygirl15 is a notable production. Just becuase you don't regonise an internet video series that has millions of viewers as notable as a television production, doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't either. And, as argued below, you agree that those Diff'rent Strokes actors only became famous "because of" Diff'rent Strokes (the Coleman and Bridges examples most notably). Just becuase Jessica Lee Rose became famouse "because of" lonelygirl15 dosn't mean she somehow is not entitled to a biography. Anyway, she was on Jay Leno and he was asking her PERSONAL questions unrelated to LG15. Why? Because that's what the public wants to know. Her personal biographical information doens't belong on the page of the video series that made her famous. MarriedtoFilm 16 September 2006 (UTC).
Are you comparing an 189-episode TV show production to a 5-6 episode Internet production? Also, I'd Appreciate it if you didn't go after me - I'm merely stating why the television show and its actors have articles, and why this split is far more contentious and debated - because it's from the Internet. Hbdragon88 20:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah but the argument here is "Jessica Rose's fame is only because of Lonelygirl15", the same argument can be applied to Coleman, Bridges and Plato as all there fame is simply because of diff'rent strokes. Don't make out Plato is know for her work before hand, how many people remember that as a hot success?. Without "Strokes" Coleman, Bridges and Plato would be remembered as small time actors with little fame, less fame than Jessica Rose, yet you seem to think even then they would still be notable for Wikipedia inclusion so your argument faulters there. The Internet is a form of medium, just like television, therefore the hit video blog of Lonelygirl15 that has been a hot hit on YouTube and been seen by millions on the site (and know by millions more through other exposure since) is no different to that of a TV show. If the character is worthy of inclusion then so is the star 152.163.100.197 12:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

People keep referencing this "millions of viewers" thing as if it makes it as big-time as a TV show. We are all aware that even marginally-popular TV shows get "millions of viewers" at once, aren't we? If lonelygirl15 has gotten only a million views (let's say for now, I know it's not accurate) over the course of two months (again, for the sake of argument), then that's about 16,667 viewers per day. If that was for a network TV show it would be considered a dismal failure. lonelygirl15's popularity is orders of magnitude less than the average TV show, let alone the popular ones. "New medium" and all that notwithstanding, it's just not as popular as people seem to think. — Saxifrage 20:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Original posting of this article

Was the original posting of this article a plant by the creators? It's more than a stub, and builds the vlog up to suggest people tear it down. Am I being cynical? Nah - there's been professional promotion behind this thing from the start, and an entry on Wikipedia can increase traffic to a site by factors ...--Shtove 21:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Should we put deletion of Jessica Rose's page to a vote?

Clearly this is a hotly debated subject. I propose we put the Jessica Rose page up for deletion and see what the wiki community decides to do with it. I don't have any malice against her page, althought I don't feel it should exist. I am not trying to slyly get rid of her page, I just feel this is the best way to get a concrete decision about its right to exist. I will be more than willing to abide by any decision the wikicommunity comes to. Agree of disagree?Criptofcorbin 07:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Dissagree. If it gets deleted someone will make another one and they will have the right too, it is arguable that she is just as notable and as much of a famous person as a lot of other actors and actresses on Wikipedia. 152.163.100.197 12:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No, they won't. If it gets deleted, any further reincarnations will get killed under {{db-repost}}. And if it gets to beceomt oo loathsome and annoying, an admin will recreate and {{protected}} it. Hbdragon88 18:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Another page will get made. This page was voted delete once, the second time it was voted keep by a wide margin. Pages get deleted and re put on here all the time and many end up statying in the end. If deleted (which I very much doubt anyway) this page will be back. 74.65.39.59 22:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The page would not be put back if deleted unless a deletion review process determines that it should come back. Should the page continue be created if it is deleted through an AFD, I will full protect it and prevent its recreation or block those who persist in readding it despite warnings. So, no, it won't be back if it is deleted through an AFD unless a DRV says otherwise, so there is no reason not to try an AFD, really. Cowman109Talk 00:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. the page has already been deleted at least once and made a comeback everytime. Now, it's here to stay. 74.65.39.59 18:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is a vote on the page's deletion, then there should be a deletion vote for every Survivor and Big Brother (all countries) contestant that has a page - there are now hundreds of them and a majority of these reality show contenstants don't have the name recognition Jessica Lee Rose has. Talk 15:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I rather suspect that any judgements of Rose's "name recognition" are going to be subjective and innaccurate. Besides, that isn't a reason not to have a deletion discussion via AfD, especially since you're all already engaging in "deletion discussion" as if there is an AfD in progress. If you want your words to weigh anything, putting them in an official deletion-discussion page is the way to give them weight. — Saxifrage 16:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
What's inacurate about Jessica Lee Rose's name recognition? Are we all imagining her and her name is hundreds of news stories? Was she not on Jay Leno? Was she not the star of a wildly popular video series? User:69.226.18.144 18:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Most people on this here Talk page are here because of their interest in lonelygirl15, so they are likely to overestimate her fame. Yes, she's been in news stories (not hundreds: there's a good example of "overestimate") and the video series is popular (not "wildly popular": that's another good example). For instance, I think that Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny was "wildly popular", but have you ever heard of it? I would not be surprised if you handn't: I know that my subjective view of reality is not the same as everyone else's. — Saxifrage 22:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
"Hundreds" being an "overestimate"? ... Google News serch on "Jessica Rose" showed 317 current articles. Search on "Jessica Lee Rose" showed 166 for a total of 483 news stories. (Look these up yourself if you don't believ me). Sorry, we don't take votes on the facts .... And that Ulitmate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny (USUD) is an excellent example of why the Jessica Rose page should be kept. Not only does USUD, which you and probably most people consider to not be "wildly popular," has a Wikipedia article, but its writer Neil Cicierega also has an article. So your example of a song most people haven't heard of, and its writer that garnered notoriety only because of said song BOTH have articles. Under your own criteria Jessica Lee Rose is more deserving of an article than your examples. User:69.226.18.144 00:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
No, you're missing the point. Scroll up a bit and read the original post that I responded to so you better understand what I wrote. Someone was arguing that we should vote to delete every article about Survivor contenstants because they "don't have the name recognition Jessica Lee Rose has". My point is that this is an inherently subjective judgement: do you seriously expect big Survivor fans to agree with that statement? Subjective judgements like that are nearly always inaccurate. It's a pretty well understood area of human psychology.
My more subtle point was that it wasn't a good reason to avoid a deletion discussion. Heck, people seem to be arguing about whether it should be deleted or not already, so why not make it official? In fact, I'm going to make it official just to get it done with and decided. — Saxifrage 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

and you have, however I think all should be given the link, so they knoew where it is. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Lee Rose TonyLeigh 22:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I put it in a new section on this page but I didn't think to link it here. — Saxifrage 22:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You Tube

"Everyone knows what You Tube is"? Nuh-uh. Why cut the brief description of it?--Shtove 12:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what links like "YouTube" are for. Only information that is relevant to the details of this article should be added. Extraneous details are just distraction. Now, whether a description of YouTube is extraneous to this article is a different issue, but I mean to say that there are good arguments against describing every little thing. — Saxifrage 16:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sentence Removal

For more information, see cassieiswatching. In "Swimming" Bree playfully whispers to the audience "He's probably not taking me swimming at all. He's probably taking me into the woods to hack me into little pieces and eat me.

The two sentences after cassieiswatching seem tacked on and don't really flow with the rest of that section. We don't really know anything about Cassie yet (we don't know 100% if she's even affiliated with The Creators of lonelygirl15), so there's really no point in suggesting that Daniel has done that to her(as the section seems to). Unless anyone objects I'm going to delete it. If you strongly object then feel free to revert but at least justify it first. Levid37 17:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Unanswered question about LG15

I looked up LG15 on wikipedia because I'd seen some news articles and wanted to know the history of the video blog. When did it start? how many episodes etc? I expected to find this information on wikipedia, being an encyclopedia rather than a news site, but most of the article is about the ummasking of LG15. Does anyone know the history, should it be here?

Ta Paul 210.9.69.203 05:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The article does need a lot of work. The unmasking dominates the entire thing. There needs to be a list of episodes with a synopsis of each (possibly on a separate page), as well as a synopsis of the entire series. I also suggest taking out quite a bit of the unmasking. Either that or putting it on a separate page for it as well. Levid37 00:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of her accent?

Under "Uncovering the Truth", she is described as using non-American pronunciations of certain words. I was curious and checked out the video in question - while one can hear certain twangs you wouldn't expect from an American (especially when you're trying to detect New Zealander speech!), none of the cited words seem off. "Antarctica" comes close, as we usually drop the first C, but while reading from a book, people tend to enunciate better. I do think there's SOME truth there, but can anyone do a more honest edit of that portion?--Falsified 04:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

22nd ref

Does anyone know what happened to the 22nd ref? Seems to appear blank. —Jared Hunt September 20, 2006, 01:34 (UTC)

That's one of the troubles with the reference system. What happened is that a reference was being used in the lead to cite her DOB and then reused later to cite something else. The reference got pulled from the lead without being "filled out" down below, so the reference that was left was "reusing" nothing and appeared blank.
I went back to this diff and found the contents of the original reference and fixed it. I don't really think we should be using Google's cached pages as references (which might be why the original was removed), but at least it is working now and that can be decided later. — Saxifrage 05:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Problem is that Google's cache gets updated once in a while. Something like the Internet Archive is more reliable, but it takes about an year for content to appear there. But then, "retrieved at" always prevents the first problem. —Jared Hunt September 20, 2006, 11:20 (UTC)

Another blank for the 17th ref. —Jared Hunt September 21, 2006, 03:15 (UTC)

The Wet

In the Trivia section, Bree's discussion of a trip to the Northern Territory and her subsequent witnessing of the start of the wet season is cited as being an indicator of some kind of occult activity. This is simply not the case. What she describes is both normal and common, and happens every year in the many places around the world which experience monsoon season. It is eerily quiet before the storm hits, and the lcoal people usually do come out witness the event, which is quite spectacular.

I haven't changed the article, as this is my first post on wikipedia, and I thought it wise to see if more experienced people agree first. Mortal Wombat 16:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Individually, I wouldn't disagree with you, but the videos form a collective whole, and in connection with the Thelema references, the Crowley shrine, and the discussion of the ceremony she's preparing for in connection with her strange religion, the reference to her being awakened at night by her father (where was her mother) to go out in the middle of the night with farmers is thematically similar. Also, there was a citational link to an article about the Lugnassadh (sp.?) that was in earlier entries, but deleted later, when someone decided to streamline the prose.