Talk:Star Wars Kid/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Full name legalities

Is it legal to give the names of underaged kids who are being sued?

I am not a lawyer, nor does Wikipedia give legal advice. However, as this is a civil matter (and not a criminal matter) I believe that the names are public record. →Raul654 16:36, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

I read that his parents requested his last name to be kept confidential in future reproductions. Therefore, I think it would be wise if we deleted the "surname" part of his name and renamed the article simply "forename"; not in the fear that Wiki'll be sued otherwise, just out of courtesy to the poor kid. Kakashi-sensei 03:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Uhhh, no. They can request all they want, but he's already been very prominently featured in a USA today story, as well as being mentioned in many, many places on the web. Our mission is to inform, and their request is contray to that mission. →Raul654 03:38, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Those don't count because they were written before his parents requested his name not be reproduced. You'll notice that [1] and [2] no longer display his last name. Kakashi-sensei 04:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

You miss the point - his parents want to keep people in ignorance, and our job is countering ignorance. Their request fundementally goes against our mission. →Raul654 04:14, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

The request by [forename]'s parents has absolutely nothing to do with "keeping people in ignorance." They're asking to keep his last name confidential because the kid went to a mental institution over the incident. If he were your son or if you were the kid himself, you'd feel the same way. This isn't about "going against our mission." This is about protecting an individual's legal and ethical right to privacy and confidentiality. Kakashi-sensei 18:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

As recently as March 3 2005, Montreal's La Presse newspaper reprinted a New York Times article (translated into French) that mentions [forename] [surname] by name [3]. His name is public, it was widely reported back in 2003 in local Quebec media [4] and international media. To the best of my knowledge, there is no court order in effect in Canada to keep his name secret, and it's a couple of years too late for that by now anyway. In any case his parents have filed a civil suit in any case, I don't think there's any anonymity granted in civil suits (as opposed to criminal cases), no? -- Curps 00:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Surely Wikipedia should be more interested in the collation of factual information rather than being 'nice' to people who would rather not be famous by removing some personal details from their entries. What next, nominating pages about sex offenders for deletion because they bring them worldwide humiliation?143.252.80.100 09:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Is there a specific legal or site-ordained policy against revealing a name in this case? If not, I recommend the name of [forename] [surname] be added to this article. The main source cited by this article (a story by the Globe and Mail) includes the name, so to omit it here is only to obscure the subject of this relevant article. --Nick Douglas 21:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• "What next, nominating pages about sex offenders for deletion because they bring them worldwide humiliation?"

Was that an innuendo on the disabled Brian Peppers? It's not sure if he groped a nurse by mistake or if it he indeed touched a girl inappropriately. So maybe this (and the vandalism) are the reasons the article about him as a sex offender was deleted. 83.76.194.60 18:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Argument to Rename Article

Alright, I concede. I've given up on this argument (I never had much of an argument anyway, did I?) in favor of a small suggestion. While this may sound like a covert plan to get my way on the last issue, I assure you it's not. My suggestion is perhaps that the article be named "Star Wars Kid," since most people who are familiar with the incident would know [forename] better by this name. The article would, of course, still contain [forename]'s full legal name, but I simply thought that people would be more likely to type "Star Wars Kid" into the search bar than they would "[forename] [surname]" (most of the people I know who are familiar with the case can't even spell "[forename] [surname]"). Again, just a suggestion. Kakashi-sensei 20:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

That probably makes sense, under the Wikipedia:Use common names policy. -- Curps 04:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed then? Kakashi-sensei 13:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This makes sense. There are currently 81,200 Google results for "Star Wars Kid" and only 2,650 results for "[forename] [surname]." Star Wars Kid should be the primary entry, and [[[forename] [surname]]] should redirect to it. --4.38.40.52 02:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree also, change it to Star Wars kid Themindset 03:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There you go, I changed it. Themindset 04:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant

This issue is rather moot, especially considering that millions of people have already seen the videos and know full well who this kid is. Removing his last name from this entry isn't going to make any difference considering the results delivered by a Google search merely using his first name are all in reference to [surname] as the one and only SWK. So drop it already. SWK for life! --260 16:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Image

The image was deleted as a copyvio, I was agreed that fair use was not applicable. Here is the discussion from WP:CP.--nixie 12:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:Star_Wars_Kid.jpg Screen shots from a school video posted on the internet as a prank against the fat kid in the video - no source cited and no licence given. A curate's egg 14:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Accepted fair use. See Template:Screenshot. Postdlf 16:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT CORRECT - THE VIDEO WAS TAKEN BY THE FAT KID AND USED WITHOUT HIS PERMISSION BY HIS SCHOOL MATES - HIS PARENTS THEN SUED THEM - FAIRUSE - I DON'T THINK SO A curate's egg 07:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I see someone has now removed the VIO tag calling it "bogus". Can someone determine whether this is a vio picture or not - ok it is a screenshot - but the video was posted on the internet as a prank and seemingly without permission - this would seem to be mean it is a copyvio as is everthing that flows from it. A curate's egg 09:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Under US law, a photograph focused on and featuring an identifiable person cannot be published without that person's permission. Exceptions exist for public figures and celebrities, but it would be stretching a point to say that the Star Wars kid was a celebrity, especially since his only claim to fame resulted from a violation of his rights associated with this material. Hence I would agree it should be deleted. Dragons flight 03:59, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

This armchair lawyering is, as usual, fucking ridonkulous. In a court of law, exactly how does one define a "celebrity"? Are you a celebrity if you are a hidden character in a top-selling console video game, like Tony Hawk's Underground 2? What if reference is made to you in a television series, such as Veronica Mars? Or wait, what if your infamous video is played on a huge-ass Jumbotron screen at SBC Park during a San Francisco Giants game, are you a celebrity then? If this image is indeed a "copyvio", then mark it for deletion— I'll be right behind you to contest it is not. Like it or not, this kid is a celebrity. —RaD Man (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Radman, pusuant to our dispute when you kept reverting pics so that your friend could appear in over 20 wikipedia articles that didn't relate to him... I must say you are a rather huge hypocrit. I invite everyone here to go read Radman's statements on my talk page to see how important copyvio is to him (or, at least, when he's a proxy-puppet for his buddy). Themindset 02:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Without resorting to personal attacks, I invite people to go read them too. That argument was whether to allow a substandard "promo photo" which was being uploaded by you, or a higher quality, public domain image uploaded by User:Alkivar. This argument is whether or not a copyvio is taking place, and I submit that one is not, which is why the image hasn't been deleted through the Wikipedia image deletion process. Someone, please prove me wrong by submitting this to IfD. —RaD Man (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new image here before coming across this discussion, I'll wait to see what the final verdict is before actually editing the article -- MacAddct1984 06:20, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but Image:star_wars_kid.png meets my own interpretation of fair use. Can someone please cite the link to the original WP:IFD discussion? Hall Monitor 17:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The only archive of it I can find exists here: here -- MacAddct1984 22:22, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment NNDB has a picture of this kid on their site here. 71.65.54.92 05:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I added this photo to the article, though it may have been a careless mistake. Edit at will. —Joshfist 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What was the result of the legal preceedings?

The article doesn't make mention of it.--Micro506 16:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to any recent (post-2003) news at all about this on the Internet. -- Curps 19:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

How ironic... Serendipodous 16:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Is he all right?

I didn't know the poor kid ended up in a mental institution over this, but then, I shouldn't have been surprised. What happened to him really is unfair, and an abject lesson in the dangers of our goldfish-bowl society (and a reminder of just how cruel and venal kids can be- I had no idea that they had actually broken into his locker. That's vile). I am a bit troubled by this article though; are we not contributing to this kid's undeserved noteriety?Serendipodous 17:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Sept 8 FJC:::Poor kid? If he was upset over this to the point it put him in a mental institution, then he had big problems before the video ever appeared online. What's the "cruel prank?" A video of him goofing around was made public. How is that cruel?

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, and to add to that, Wikipedia is not here to protect people's feelings. It's an encyclopedia, not a kindergarden project. Themindset 22:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if the article is going to do any harm - the damage is done. If anything its an example of how cruel some people are and a reminder of it. But I must say, what happened to him was terrible. What absolute bastards. Forever young 13:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I would think that instead of contributing to his pain, this article does a fairly good job of fleshing out the fact that this is a real person who was the victim of a very cruel long-term prank. If anything it should help to educate people, and prevent them from sharing the video and laughing at his expense. I am curious, though, about the outcome of the lawsuit? I searched a little bit for the outcome, and couldn't find anything other than announcements that it was filed.Starfoxy 03:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What the heck's the guy's problem, anyway? I would love to have a video seen by millions of people, even if I was somewhat ungraceful in it. Besides, the video's been altered many times to add the lightsaber and wooshing effects, and I would think a true Star Wars fan would think that's pretty freakin' cool. I know I would.

In any event, if he didn't want the video to appear on the Internet, he shouldn't have left it in a studio for months-- or heck, even made the video at all. ekedolphin 18:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"In any event, if he didn't want the video to appear on the Internet, he shouldn't have left it in a studio for months-- or heck, even made the video at all" -Eh? Are you seriously suggesting that if you create any private material, you should not be surprised if someone puts it on the internet? So if I broke into your house and stole your videos of your vacation and put it on the internet, you'd just shrug your shoulders and say fair game? Ridiculous. Magic Pickle 21:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Links to the videos

Obviously, the video was a classic example of cyberbullying. By providing links to websites containing the original (or modified) videos, we are contributing to the problem. Thus, I believe that it would be prudent to remove such links. Brent Woods 23:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's intent is to inform, even if that information might hurt somebody. This is an article about an internet phenomenan. It would be absurd for it not to have a link to its subject. We give link to hate sites like Godhatesfags.com, a KKK site, some neo-Nazi sites, etc., and they are far more damaging. -LtNOWIS 04:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we can (and should) discuss the internet phenomenon itself and the history of the incident; the positive effect is that it would raise awareness on the whole issue of cyberbullying. However, linking to the video itself would prolong the bullying problem. By the same token, we could have articles about racism that give the facts and history behind racist groups such as KKK (maintaining NPOV), but we should not link to sites that actively promote racism as this defeats the purpose of informing. Brent Woods 05:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Since when is Wikipedia's final purpose to stop racism? -LtNOWIS 06:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not, and nor is it Wikipedia's purpose to promote it. All I'm saying is that we should give the facts on these issues (NPOV), but not link to sites that give opinions or promote such activity. Seasons Greetings. Brent Woods 18:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The Truth?

When you take a closer look at this case, you'll see that it's still not very clear what really happened. Look at the last seconds of the original Star Wars Kid video for example. There's a very short fragment of a basketball match. When you look even closer before that, you'll notice that [forename] runs to the camera, but does not switch it of. As if someone used the tape to film the basketbal match AFTER [forename] filmed himself.
Another thing: the file wasn't uploaded to Kazaa. You don't upload something to a p2p network, you share it. And the claim that it was uploaded/shared at April 19, 2003 is questionable too, because it is difficult to check this. Above that, the original(?) video states as Copyright '2003-04-14'. That's April 14.
The video above seem to have the original content, but does it also has the original name? I've heard that it was originally named Jackass_starwars_funny.wmv by the kids. When you think about it, that sounds more logical when you share something at a p2p network and you want it to be found. 'jackass', 'starwars' and 'funny' are all common search terms.
Furthermore, I don't think the file had been downloaded thousands, or even millions of times within a few weeks as often stated. That's as good as impossible. The web is big, but not as big that if you drop a videofile at Kazaa, it immediatly draws the attention of hundreds of users per week. The video was eventually downloaded thousands of times when sites began to host the clip and it's 'remixes' and when it got attention from the media all over the world.
Face 20:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt very much that kids from Trois-Rivières, Quebec would have given the file an English name... I imagine that came later. 69.156.104.183 05:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm Dutch, but I'm not typing Dutch here. After all, this is an international site where everybody speaks English. And Kazaa is an international filesharing program, where English is just the standard language.
Ofcourse, both your and my claim could be true. Another reason why this story could use a little clarification. Many sources on this page are French, and they, among other sources ofcourse, may contain more details about this case (see my above post). So if there's someone around here who can read French, has the time to read this sources exstensively and would like to help, I would be very pleased with that ;-).
Face 20:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Quebec law

Isn't there something in Quebec law stating that individuals have an inviolable right to control the use of their own image, or something like that? DS 23:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, you're thinking of the case Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa Inc. But Wikipedia isn't hosted in Quebec, so there's not a lot they can do. 69.156.104.183 05:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Granted. But I'd think that was relevant to the lawsuit, yes? DS 15:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a law stating that the creator of a video owns that video, and if it is stolen from the creator, he still holds copyright. Hence, why we can't use a frame of it as fair use either. Baiter 05:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if the video is made with a school camera on a tape that's not yours?

And when exactly did he register a copyright in the USA? Liu Bei 13:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In the US, a copyright is automatic, and does not need to be registered. From the wikipedia article on copyright "In the United States, copyright has relatively recently been made automatic (in the style of the Berne Convention), which has had the effect of making it appear to be more like a property right. Thus, as with property, a copyright need not be granted or obtained through official registration with any Government Office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape or a letter), the copyright holder is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights."

oops, forgot to sign that Baiter 21:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A screenshot would be fair use under US copyright law, right? It isn't really any different than a screenshot from a movie. 171.71.37.29 21:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

We may generally use a screenshot in accordance with fair use and our non-free content criteria. But the privacy concerns here are to be noted as well, and are overriding in this case. — TKD::Talk 21:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a screenshot where his face isn't visible would be acceptable. 69.12.143.197 16:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Cyber bullying?

I think if the assertion of "cyber-bullying" is going to be made, that the article had better defend it with sources, rather than make an empty assertion. It seems very POV to me. I was not aware that the majority of people who'd ever heard about this video on the Net thought anything bad about it or him. Rather, quite the opposite. Compare [forename]'s story to Mahir Cagri, who later went on a US concert tour. The question remains why would [forename] tape himself and then leave the tape behind if he didn't think he was any good. Here's a tip, if you don't want people to see you, don't record yourself! And if you do, keep the tape! - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

-As I said earlier, to imply that personal creations are somehow fair game for others to steal, then we have created a rather strange society. So presumably if you don't want people to read your innermost thoughts, don't write a diary, either. As for cyber-bullying, I think most people who watch the vid are laughing at him, not with him. Mahir is somewhat different, because he's an example of someone picked out for being obscure and eccentric, not for looking silly alone, like SWK. The kid left his tape in a studio - ever thought that he made a silly mistake and simply forgot about it? It's a bit of a leap to suggest he left it there deliberately. If he wanted it on the net he could have put it there himself. Magic Pickle 21:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

- "As for cyber-bullying, I think most people who watch the vid are laughing at him, not with him." No, we're laughing with him because we don't assume he was seriously trying to show off his lightsaber skills. When people see the video the assumption is that the kid was goofing around. Most don't think he had serious aspirations as a Jedi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.218.101 (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

notability policy for memes proposed

Please help build policy at: Wikipedia:Notability (memes). Thank you, --Urthogie 15:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

EVERYONE READ: the person in question was NOT doing a Star Wars Imitation

I have had enough with everyone saying that this kid is the "Star Wars Kid".

When, in FACT, he is not imitating Darth Maul.

He is doing an Exhibition Kata from the Sega Dreamcast game "Soul Calibur", with the character "Kilik".

This is not an opinion, this is cold hard fact.

For anyone who has the game, unlock the Exhibition Kata for Kilik, and you will see that the kid was trying to do that.

Numerous times thorought the video this kid held onto one of the ends of his stick. If this were Star Wars, he would have lost his hand because you CAN'T TOUCH THE LIGHTSABER'S LIGHT.

In addition, he did Kilik stances in the video, as well as his DOWN + A+B Stick swinging from side to side.

In addition moreso, he placed one end on the floor to prop it in one of his stances, which you cannot do with a Lightsaber.

Please, for the love of god, stop spreading the lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DARK ANDY (talk • contribs)

O MY GOSH!!!! This changes everything!!!!

Wrong, this changes nothing. He is well known as the Star Wars kid and is famous because of the sfx people have added to the video. Add the information to the article by all means (if you have a source) but it doesn't change the fact he is known as the Star Wars Kid. --Tim ^{(talk), (contribs)} 13:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does change it. If any person reads what I wrote, and then actually sees Soul Calibur's Kilik Exhibition, his/her mind will be changed, as they will know who he is actually imitating.

You fail to see the smaller picture of changing minds one at a time.

--ANDY ^{(talk), (contribs)}

I agree with ANDY, I think we rename this article Soul Calibur Kilik Exhibition Kid. 128.97.156.157 23:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

...please tell me that was sarcasm. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not denying that it is a Soul Calibur impression, but he is still known as the star wars kid, and wouldn't be famous if it wasn't for the star wars effects added in later by many people. Add the information about Soul Calibur to the article if you want people to know about it. --Tim ^{(talk), (contribs)} 15:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I don't think it's as clear as you think it is.

First off, people can see the original star wars kid and a Darth Maul fight and Kilik's exhibition for research purposes. (Of course, this material is copyrighted so I don't know if it's welcome on a talk page, but then I've seen links to YouTube showing copyrighted material in articles, so who knows.)

Let me refute your points: it's unclear, if the video is of a Star Wars impression, whether or not the beams of light are supposed to project out the ends of the stick, or if they are part of the stick. You say the kid holds his hand at the end of the stick, which he'd try to avoid if it was the magic light. But if the light came out of the end, it wouldn't be the case. After watching the video a few times I don't remember him having his hand ON the end of the stick, just very near it.

As far as him touching the stick to the ground, well, a light saber can turn off one of its ends. He could just be careless.

It's unclear if his noises in the last part of the video are Kilik's stick whooshing through the air, or the light saber's buzzing/whooshing. Personally it sounds a little more like a light saber to me.

His choreographing is a lot more like Kilik than Darth Maul, but who says it has to be Darth Maul just because he's using a double sided weapon. It could be from a lot of fight scenes, and a lot of it could be original. Also, he never does the over the head nor tapping the ground that Kilik does.

The kid is just having fun with the camera. There is no reason he has to be 100% accurate to the Star Wars universe, nor even close. His carelessness is obvious when he steps on the cloth on the ground and slips.

Any resemblance to Kilik you see could be a coincidence.

I've seen it called a Kilik impression once in YouTube, and two or three times in blogs. Most people think it's a Star Wars impression. (But I was just doing a quick study, nothing in depth.)

So I think that the article should mention that most people believe it's a Star Wars imitation (because it looks quite a bit like one, and it's touted as one, and Soul Caliber isn't as popular so people don't identify with it), and some believe it's a Kilik imitation. See NPOV, No orginial research, and verifiability.

If I were bold enough, and a decent writer I'd edit it myself. Maybe I'll work up the nerve eventually. 70.66.9.162 11:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You've posted the wrong Kilik movie. The one you putted here is from Soul Calibur II, which was released in 2003. [forename] made his video in November 2002. You need this one from the first Soul Calibur. -- 82.217.240.47 17:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

He's also been edited into clips from The Matrix, Hulk, Braveheart, etc.... but he's still SWK despite what he was actually imitating. That's what the public at large knows him as, and that's how it will stay regardless of how much you love Soul Caliber. Screw Kilik. --260 22:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someone can find a video of said exibition by Kilik to compare, and if it's true i definetly think there sould be a mention of it in the article.

How many defendants?

The wording in the section about the lawsuits is a little confusing. Were there 3 or 4 defendants? --Chris Griswold 05:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Colbert

Colbert did a spoof on this tonite on the Colbert Report. Haha. BlueWiz7 00:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That was hardly an impression of Star Wars Kid. Colbert was pointing out how ridiculous the blue (or green) screen usage was in the movies, implying that the actors do any real interaction comparable to the finished CGI production. Pencilneck 17:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It looked a lot like a parody of Star Wars Kid to me, and I suspect he and his writers were well aware of it. I realize that he was making a point beyond just impersonating SWK, but he did have inspiration. Vivaldi (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The media sez SWK. -- Zanimum 14:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed unsourced, libellous section of personal opinions about the subject rather than the article

I deleted an unsourced, potentially libelous section because "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." (In addition, the section was poorly written: "the kids problem" (sic), "He should be greatful!" (sic), "why could he take it like the Numa Numa kid?" when couldn't was the appropriate word for this occasion, swearing, and blame for the victim of unintended public exposure to ridicule ("It was his fault he left the tape behind...his fat ass...") The responses were personal opinions about third parties: "you're probably the only person in the world...," "I don't think he IS the only youth today who would pick...," "...would definitely make ME feel a whole lot better." None of this helps to improve the article. VisitorTalk 14:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What is Trois-Rivières?

Is that a neighborhood in Quebec? Please forgive me for not knowing since I live on the other side of the continent in California, USA. But for me the information that he lives in Quebec is all I need to know about the issue. What is the reason for including Trois-Rivieres? It gives me the creepy feeling that it would make it easier for someone to look him up and find him rather than if just Quebec was given. I think it's cool to have an article on the cultural phenomenon of the "Star Wars kid", however when too much personal information is given it gives the wrong impression. I have taken out "Trois-Rivieres" twice and had it put back in again. I will not do anything more about it myself. Steve Dufour 01:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I learned that Trois-Rivières is a town, not a neighborhood. However I still think the same logic holds. Steve Dufour 04:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's in the NNDB...if that qualifies as a reliable source, then it should be put back in there. Hbdragon88 05:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The source is not the issue. The privacy of a child is. Steve Dufour 12:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with you there, Steve. Our concern is simply to repeat and summarise what has already been said elsewhere. We cannot censor the truth, be it for any non-legal reason. We cannot make decisions on content based on morality, compassion or sympathy, as such a decision is necessarily subjective, and objectivism is and always will be the first rule of an encyclopaedia. This article is a biography, and the town in which one lives is, in my opinion, an important fact. This town has been reported as being his by what we consider a reliable source, therefore it's inclusion is wholly justified. Yandman 13:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[surname] is now 18, based on info in other articles about the court case. He is no longer a child. TheRealFennShysa 16:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

But still he is a private, not a public person. I think the article is cool. However his fame is online, not in the physical world. Steve Dufour 04:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Trois-Rivieres is a big place, with over 100000 people - I don't think we need to worry about his privacy... it's not like we're handing out his home address. Themindset 16:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Star Wars kid → [[[surname] [forename]]] – Although "Star Wars kid" is common, he maybe doesn't want to called him by that name. 성혀니^{talk with me}_{see my work} 14:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Oppose - he's famous as the star wars kid, so that should be the name of the article. Anyone who knows his name knows he is the star wars kid, but plenty of people know him as the star wars kid but don't know his name. --Tim ^{(talk), (contribs)} 14:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, same reason. Don't new discussions go on the bottom of a talk page? Jefffire 14:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose - As you say, "Star Wars Kid" is common. Would you move Bono to "Paul David Hewson"? And what he wants or doesn't want is irrelevant. Yandman 15:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This has been done to death. Just leave it alone. Kafziel 16:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This isn't really biography as much as it is dicussion of an internet phenomenon. And frankly, out of pure charity it would be kinder not to blazon the kid's name in big bold type at the head of the article. Mangoe 13:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, for all the same reasons. This is what people know "him" as, The Stars Kid, Charles Schulz, hated the name "Peanuts" for his comic, but if he changed it some people wouldnt get the memo. Its just a bad idea. We will confuse people. Thegrateone 10:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Original research

I have tagged the article with this. Things like "The tape was left in the basement" "It was downloaded many times" counts as original research. -- Selmo ^(talk) 19:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The logic for keeping this article?

Why is it that Wikipedia keeps the entry of this guy, but deletes the articles of other famous people like Brian Peppers which are in the same position of being famous due to an embarassing situation? Either keep all of them and destroy their lives by publishing everything about them, or delete them all, but don't be picky. Guest Account 11:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

what is the logic of Wikipedia? There ain't none. users think of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, yet by the true sense of the word it isn't. Wikipedia can have a section devoted to the Playboy Playmates with the largests breasts -- but try to create a page with more culturally significant content and see how long it stays up. The issue is not the content, the issue is that Wikipedia is flawed beyond reason.

The problem here is not that a topic is or is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, the problem is a fundamental structural flaw in Wikipedia. Wikipedia presents information by consensus. Enough people stand behind (and protect) the words on a particular page and that page is allowed to stay. Those who want to edit/amend/delete are out of luck if sufficient numbers of those supports work to keep things the way they want it. An encyclopedia is published and the editor and/or publisher stand behind the final product. If information is inaccurate or erroneous or an outright fabrication, there is somebody who has to assume responsibility. With Wikipedia time and again we can see information is erroneous, or misleading, or poorly worded, or an outright lie but if sufficient numbers of people stand behind the page –then it remains. Wikipedia has very clear rules regarding how the system operates, and time and again those rules are sidestepped, disregarded, or bent. The query is valid; If Star Wars Kid is worthy of a Wikipedia entry, then why not a Wikipedia entry for Brian Peppers? However, a more pertinent query might be; what number of Brian Peppers Entry supporters would be required to outmuscle those who oppose the same page? Wikipedia is not about fact – Wikipedia is about consensus. 202.79.62.18 02:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• While I understand the general concern over "rule by consensus", I think one of the reasons wikipedia becomes its own meme is because it does allow for articles such as this... based on notability and cultural influence. It's not trying to be an Encarta clone, nor should it. Articles like this deserve a place on an encyclopedic site, so long as they are NPOV, tasteful, and information that people seek to know. This topic and that of Dog poop girl is also one of socio-legal significance, because they will likely set precedence with privacy laws, which are very slowly evolving to catch up with modern technology. In the end, the wiki is a place for users, by users, and the average reader knows this. Go ahead and nominate it again for deletion, I'm sure it will survive again. --64.253.48.73 06:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also a pretty big cultural phenomenon.66.156.29.72 21:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe this article's subject has a complete lack of notability, per the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. The fact that pop culture happened to pick up on a video clip of a person who apparently was documented behaving inappropriately does not make the person nor the clip rise to the level of notability. I support the proposal to delete this article. VisitorTalk 05:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong notability guideline. This is primarily about the video. — TKD::Talk 05:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would the video be notable? And can you please point out to me the guidelines that explain why video of a trivial event can itself be notable? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VisitorTalk (talk • contribs) 07:57, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

The release of the video started an Internet phenomenon (as well as controversy and a lawsuit); this has been non-trivially documented in multiple sources. See WP:WEB as well as the general WP:N guidelines. — TKD::Talk 13:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Under WP:N, his name is notable, and suppressing it is a violation of Wikipedia policy. dcandeto 22:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, omitting non-relevant information is not censorship. The article is not improved by adding his name, as it tells us absolutely nothing about the phenomenon. In the balance of privacy required by the biographies of living persons policy, we're leaving it out. If you think the article should be deleted because of this... hey, awesome, let's delete it. That would be just fine. FCYTravis 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The name is relevant, though, so it's censorship. Going with your line of thought though, you concur that we should delete Gary Brolsma's name from Numa Numa, right? The video is still an Internet phenomenon without knowing who the funny dancing guy is. dcandeto 23:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

How is the name relevant? You keep baldly asserting that it is, when you have introduced no evidence to support your assertion. As for Mr. Brolsma, his case is entirely different and non-analogous, as demonstrated by the article at Gary Brolsma. Mr. Brolsma has intentionally placed himself back in the public eye, doing interviews and forming a band to capitalize on the phenomenon. The subject of Star Wars kid has done none of those things. If at some point in the future he does intentionally place himself in the public spotlight in an attempt to similarly take advantage of his fame, then this decision can and should be reconsidered at that time. But until then, this young man is a private citizen who does not want the attention and in the absence of any compelling reason to the contrary, we will respect his privacy. FCYTravis 06:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If the article is actually about the video and the controversy surrounding the video, then I'd like to see the title of the article changed to reflect that: "'Star Wars kid' video". This would clarify that the article is not about the kid, but about the video. This change in title would also make clear that the only biographical material about the kid which is relevant is that which is needed to understand the widespread coverage of the video, controversy, and lawsuit. VisitorTalk 14:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Philosophically, I don't have a problem with clarifying the distinction as much as possible, but I'm not sure that our naming conventions would agree with the extra verbiage. The very first sentence states that the subject is an "Internet phenomenon". — TKD::Talk 01:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hodgeman "Reference"

I think Hodgemens's reference is to fan films such as Ryan vs Dorkman and the like . . . http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=672422470842718521 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.62.110 (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Added back cultural references

I added back the cultural references, though upon re-reading them they could certainly use some cleaning up. I just feel without the cultural references it is difficult to determine what separates the star of this Internet video from the several thousand non-notable Internet videos out there. 138.217.252.28 02:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Is he Still Like that

Overweight and all? Cause people like this I feel sorry for, and I wanted to know if he's okay. And if he is, shouldn't that be in the article?--24.22.212.250 23:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• ummm ... that makes a lot of sense. You think we should update this page with his current weight? And you feel sorry for "people like this"? Might I suggest some more time spent away from the computer, you know, getting out and meeting people? Hu Gadarn 22:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Weird Al Yankovic Video?

There is a brief scene in the "White & Nerdy" video where weird Al is parodies this kid.

This is true, and the White & Nerdy page includes a link to Star Wars kid as a consequence. A back-link would be entirely appropriate, I think, but someone else will have to do it -- the page is locked still. --211.30.226.52 07:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

settlement amount

The article says the settlement amount was around $150K Canadian, then that it was around $300K Canadian. Which is it?? 68.20.26.208 04:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo

I took out the photo needed tag. If someone's notable for having embarrassing pictures of himself spread on the Internet, we should not spread more pictures and embarrass him further. If the letter of the rule doesn't say this (BLP comes close, but has a loophole), we should use IAR and common sense and not include a picture. Ken Arromdee 18:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why Tony Sidaway removed personal references

I've removed all personal references to the identity of the child (he was fourteen at the time, I believe) from this article. It is not necessary for an encyclopedia to refer to the actual identity of a person in describing an internet meme, and as a top ten website we have an ethical responsibily to avoid invading the privacy of this person. Please don't restore the references without discussion, and please, not without strong justification. Some of the sources cited in this article identify him by name, so I'm not preventing anyone who needs to know finding his identity. I'm just stopping Wikipedia being one of the websites that needlessly hangs an albatross around this blameless young man's neck because of the acts of thoughtless individuals.

There are sourcing problems with this article, but for the sake of clarity I'm not addressing them in this edit. --Tony Sidaway 05:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I made some more tentative edits. I removed the US dollar sums because he's Canadian and there's no reason to believe that any given reader will be helped by seeing amounts in US dollars in brackets after the Canadian sums. I removed some references to blogs, which frankly looked as if they were there to promote the blog sites. I removed most of the external links because we're not really a link site. Please leave a note here if you decide to add stuff back. --Tony Sidaway 06:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

These were helpful edits which improved the overall quality of the article, thank you Tony. Burntsauce 22:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Was any Wikipedia policy or guideline followed when this decision was made? I'm under the impression that this move is against WP:NOT#CENSOR; similar articles on internet memes (including Bus Uncle, a featured article) has displayed the name, including background on the subjects. --Madchester 19:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How is this against WP:NOT? I think unless there is some pressing reason (which I can think of none) we don't need to list personal info about the dude. --Chuck Sirloin 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

To be complete and uncensored, that's why. It's one thing if the kid or his family have requested that his name not be mentioned in the article, but hundreds of other sites have already mentioned his name and identified him as such. Unless there's been an explicit and official request made for removal this is still censorship, since in essence we're removing content "because it might offend someone." -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture section

I appreciate the attempt to catalog the meme's impact on popular culture, particularly on TV comedy.

We have this section in the article:

The video and its subsequent popularity spawned many spoofs on television, including episodes of the Cartoon Network's animated series The Venture Bros. (Tag Sale -- You're It!), Dark Oracle ("Paintball Wizard"), and Arrested Development ("The Immaculate Election", "Sword of Destiny," "Prison Break-In,", "Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide" and "The Ocean Walker"). In 2005, CNET listed the Star Wars Kid as #8 on its Top 10 Web Fads list.[5], while in 2007, the G4 tv show, Attack of the Show, rated it the number 1 viral video of all time.

I can see that we have a reference for CNET there, and the Attack of the Show rating, and we have a screenshot for Arrested Development. But the rest are just the names of TV series (and in some cases, the names of single episodes, which is helpful).

I think the problem I see here is that they're just episode names, and there isn't any source for the suggestion that these have been significant references to Star Wars Kid or have had any impact outside the viewership of those programmes. I want to conservatively trim this down to what we can verify, really. At present, this would probably be only the CNET and Attack of the Show references. It seems to me that these in themselves provide adequate context to the meme's penetration, whilst the list of individual shows are effectively raw data and there's no real encyclopedic point in just cataloguing them. --Tony Sidaway 13:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree to some extent. What is left is from an attempt on my part to narrow down a REALLY long trivia list into a coherent paragraph, keeping only a couple of examples of the range of types of shows that featured spoofs. I think that having a nicely written paragraph can fend off many of the attempts to tack on all the more useless drivel while still showing that the video had a wide impact on television shows produced during the period. --Chuck Sirloin 15:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What I see in that list is really not much use to me; I'm British and few if any of those those programmes listed are popular enough to be well known here. The Venture Bros, I'm informed by its article, is broadcast on cable on Bravo here. Dark Oracle Oracle doesn't seem to have made it out of Canada. Arrested Development is popular enough to have made it to the UK's least popular terrestrial channel, BBC 2, where is sank without trace. This isn't like Ricky Gervais clowning around with a light saber. In fact it seems quite possible that the programmes here were being targeted specifically towards an internet meme-aware segment of the youth market, and in doing so they didn't get far outside their home audience. On the other hand I could be quite wrong in this--but who's to say? The raw data by itself isn't as much us as the CNET and Attack of the Show evaluations, which place the phenomenon as an internet meme rathet than a cultural touchstone, although it was obviously a very popular one. --Tony Sidaway 17:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted personal opinion section about the level of humor of the video

"Almost made me pee my pants" and "made me laugh the most" are not helpful comments to improve the quality of an encyclopedia article. VisitorTalk 15:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

ebaumsworld

why is the Youtube link directing to a video with an ebaumsworld watermark? it seems wrong --89.180.154.117 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC) {{editprotected}} Switch the current link to the video with one without an advertising watermark - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HPPj6viIBmU - hahnchen 00:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is all the info?

I think the article has been censored way too much. His name should be included. I don't subscribe to the argument that including his name is "invading his privacy" or hurting him in any way. Also on this talk page people are talking about how he had a mental breakdown and went to an insane asylum or something. But the article doesn't include any of that information. Also any information about bulling by his classmates is missing. What was the law suit actually for? Stealing the tape? Is embarasing somebody actually illegal in Canada?The Goat 15:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think not including his not only pathetic as it is also censorship and therefore probably illegal. --89.180.154.117 21:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

In which jurisdiction? By what law? --Iamunknown 21:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"Probably illegal"? Um... Wikipedia is a private organization, which can host whatever it wants on this site. Neither you nor anybody has freedom of speech on somebody else's servers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me but isn't Wikipedia an encyclopedia? Doesn't it have the duty to relay any notable information to it's readers? I mean, if we're going to omit this kid's name from this article why don't we just go over to the Fuck article and blur out all the bad words? And yes, his name is notable, it wasn't someone than shot Kennedy or someone that attacked Pearl Harbor, it was actual individuals. What next? Are you going to write in the preamble of the Dynamite article that a person invented Dinamyte but he's kind of ashamed of it so we won't put his name here, for his sake. --AnY FOUR! 01:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 01:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The examples you give don't apply because this kid is no where near the level of importance as the things you mention and his name is really of no consequence. --Chuck Sirloin 00:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia just judged notability, not importance; NPOV is about presenting facts, not saying "foo is more important than bar." The real reason it doesn't apply is BLP only applies to living people, not governments or the dead. 70.135.135.25 05:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't include any of that information (breakdowns etc) because no one has a verifiable source for them per the rules governing biographies of living persons. --Chuck Sirloin 00:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why remove his name entirely?

(the above argument started off on a pretty bad foot, and I just stumbled back to this article for the first time in ages after wanting to show some coworkers the background on this character, so I've decided to start a sub-section within this point) I thought The Bus Uncle (which is FA) is a decent model for how the real name can be tucked where it at least contributes to the history and/or background players in the article. After all, he sued his tormentors, he's put himself into the news with his real name. I'm not saying re-title the article, or even put his name at the top, but I cannot see the reason for not including his name at all. This is a bit troubling, just because it's "sad" doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. I think the very notion of this noble but misplaces respect is POV on its face --when did Wikipedia start offering favors? I'm sure Gary isn't thrilled about being mentioned in Numa Numa. --Bobak 21:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no legitimate reason to ban his name from inclusion in this article. Wikipedia is not censored. dcandeto 13:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected|Fix the censorship of the name.}} dcandeto 13:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, not going to happen. This matter is closed, unless circumstances change in the future with regards to the person's encyclopedicity. FCYTravis 16:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If the matter is unencyclopedic, then the article should be deleted. Banning the mention of [forename] [surname]'s name, but claiming that the rest of it is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, is censorship, and such action is blatantly in violation of official Wikipedia policy. dcandeto 21:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is primarily about the video and Internet phenomenon, not the person behind the video; don't conflate the two. Please have a thorough look at another important policy: biographies of living persons. Declining the edit request again. — TKD::Talk 21:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confused; there was only one edit request. In any case, you should probably take a look at WP:BLP, since the name doesn't violate any of that policy—it's true, verifiable, and cannot, therefore, be libelous. dcandeto 21:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you've activated the editprotected tag twice.[6] [7] It's standard procedure for an admin to un-transclude the template after fulfilling or denying the edit request. Please read WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy, especially WP:BLP#Articles about living people notable only for one event and WP:BLP#Privacy of names. Three different admins now (as well as others above) have interpreted the BLP policy in favor of exclusion of the name, so you're not likely to find a policy-based consensus for including it. — TKD::Talk 21:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as I said, I placed it once. I later reverted the refactoring of my talk page comments. That's not the same thing; read the edit summary. In any case, I'll go ahead and remove Gary Brolsma's name from the Numa Numa article, since it's not encyclopedic, either. I'm glad to know I have your support. dcandeto 22:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, since she's notable for only one event, let's remove Jasmine Richardson's name from Richardson family murders, despite the fact that it's blatant censorship, and blatantly against policy. dcandeto 22:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the policy followed in Richardson family murders, keeping the article but suppressing the name is clearly a violation of WP:NOT. This article should be deleted in accordance with WP:BLP. dcandeto 22:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That it is not libelous is of no consequence. It has been repeatedly determined that listing the young man's name is an unnecessary detail in an article which is not about the person, but instead about the Internet video. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Policy and common sense dictate that we exercise restraint and sensitivity when our articles touch on the lives of real people. FCYTravis 21:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Gary Brolsma's name is equally irrelevant for the purposes of the Numa Numa article, which is about "an internet phenomenon based on amateur videos," and judging by the NYT article on him, Brolsma doesn't want the attention, either. I'm glad to know that you, too, support the removal of his name. dcandeto 22:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

←Well, the difference with Numa Numa is that, at least as far as I know, the subject's privacy is not, at least any longer, a point of contention: in fact, he's set up a website based off of the whole phenomenon. As for the murders, the issue is that the girl in question is only indirectly referred to in news stories, because of legal reasons. So editors had been connecting the dots themselves; however, this is a type of synthesis unacceptable as original research, especially when living people are involved. The article is founded on the uncited implication that the stories cited are, in fact, related, when there is no verifiable proof that they are. Here, we can omit names here without losing significant context, because, again, the main focus is the video. Regarding the censorship bit, there are lots of verifiable, legal things that we delete/remove from Wikipedia every day for being over-detailed or tangential. We don't list every single bit of data in existence, we don't mention every instance of profanity or nudity in television or movies, and we don't go out of our way to invade privacy. — TKD::Talk 00:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Jasmine Richardson is not mentioned by name in Canadian media for the simple reason that it's against Canadian law to mention her by name or identify her; those laws are wholly irrelevant because Wikipedia is not hosted in Canada.

I'm not sure what you mean by "editors had been connecting the dots themselves;" given that it can be established from available sources that:

1. Jasmine Richardson is a 13-year-old girl from Medicine Hat. (Her full name and picture were published until she officially became a suspect, because she was considered to be a missing person until she was found.)
2. Jasmine Richardson's boyfriend is (was?) Jeremy Steinke.
3. A 13-year-old girl from Medicine Hat, with the initials J.R.,^[8] was convicted of killing her parents and brother, and Steinke was also charged in the crimes.^[9]
4. A 13-year-old girl from Medicine Hat was convicted of killing Marc and Debra Richardson and their son,^[10] and Steinke was also charged in the crimes.^[11]
5. The 13-year-old girl is the youngest convicted multiple murderer in Canadian history.^[12]

There really aren't any gaps to fill in. What was stated in the article isn't original research; it's provided in the articles I link to above, among other places. There's no invasion of privacy—noteworthy criminals do not have any expectation of keeping the details of their crimes private. (We might as well omit Scott Peterson from any mention of his wife's murder.) dcandeto 21:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be uncomfortable with depending on that kind of synthesis in an article about the felony, especially combined with BLP issues. But BLP issues have different implications depending on the article; you're welcome to discuss the matter with Phil Sandifer. — TKD::Talk 01:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit request declined. However, I will place a protected tag on the article to prevent confusion. --- RockMFR 16:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a simple test: has the kid (or his family) explicitly requested that his name not be mentioned? If so, information needs to stay gone per WP:BLP. If not, it's cut-and-dry censorship, since you're removing information because it might offend someone. (Not to mention the fact that you're bringing the quality of the article down significantly)

I also don't buy the "his identity is not relevant" argument. That's like saying (to draw a Star Wars themed parallel here) that the Luke Skywalker article doesn't need to mention Mark Hamill because his identity isn't relevant to the article. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not going to happen absent a substantial set of new evidence that suggests that the subject wants to live something other than a normal private life. FCYTravis 08:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Or possibly a larger community discussion, rather than (just calling it like I see it here) a bunch of admins saying "no" instead of evaluating arguments. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 08:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, you simply don't understand. "Community discussion" cannot override living persons privacy concerns. I suggest you find some other battle to fight, because this one has long since concluded. FCYTravis 20:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What "privacy concerns"? What evidence do you have that indicates this kid wants his name removed from the article? It's not a "privacy concern" just because a few admins say so. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The article itself mentions the whole scenario and lawsuit. It's not solely a matter of whether the subject has asked Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation specifically. — TKD::Talk 05:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The lawsuit was for compensatory damages over the release of the video; it was a punative measure, not a preventative measure. There have been no motions filed or any other indications that the family is trying to keep his name hidden from anybody. (I was not talking about Wikipedia specifically when I asked for a basis behind the "privacy" rationale) -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 08:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The lawsuit had to do with the posting of what was originally a private video. Regardless of whether it was punitive or not, it is clear that there was a case of unwanted publicity; there is no evidence that the subject or his family have changed their stance on this. I won't disable the editprotected below, since I've now become involved, but I would highly discourage the reviewing admin from restoring the name, given that there is no consensus to do so, and given that we should err on the side of privacy. — TKD::Talk 21:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected|Given recent discussion, it's clear that [surname]'s name should stop being suppressed. It's relevant, and there's no BLP issue to contend with.}} dcandeto 21:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a chance any admin is going to willingly step into this mess. Editprotected requests are not for this kind of edit, especially if a page has been locked for WP:BLP concerns. Please do not re-enable the editprotected request with this request again. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine. {{editprotected}} dcandeto 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please create the AFD discussion page first, and then add a request here with a link to it. Then I or another admin will add the AfD notice to the page. Others can't create the AfD page for you because they aren't nominating the page for deletion; but if we put a message here it will be redlinked until you create the discussion page. So you have to create the discussion page first. The location for that page is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Star Wars kid (2nd nomination). Follow the lower part of step II at [WP:AFD]] and follow step III. We will take care of step I. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(Response from RFC posting) He has been covered extensively by the media under his actual name, the cat is long out of the bag on this one. Wikipedia is not censored; the real name should be used. Italia^vivi 15:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Coming from RFC, I agree with above. The name should definitely be mentioned per BLP and notability. If his name is used in the media and he hasn't requested it be removed. It should clearly be mentioned. The article should probably even be renamed to his actual name, opposed to "Star wars kid", which is just some label that has been assigned to him. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What?

• The name should definitely be mentioned per BLP and notability. - A BLP-related interpretation would generally indicate the name be removed.
• If his name is used in the media and he hasn't requested it be removed. - Since when can someone "request [his or her name] be removed" from the media?
• The article should probably even be renamed to his actual name, opposed to "Star wars kid", which is just some label that has been assigned to him. - Why? It isn't a biography, it is an article about the video. --Iamunknown 03:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Having read through this, the only reason I saw for keeping his name out is privacy concerns. Here's the relevant portion of BLP:

Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.

That's our guide. Please state the rationale (not argue either side) and how it relates to that. 69.12.143.197 16:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The name is usually cited to a news story, not to one of the other types of secondary sources, and, given that the article is about the video and Internet phenomenon, actual names can be considered ancillary. That's the rationale for the current situation, given that BLP encourages erring on the side of privacy. — TKD::Talk 01:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Also relevant is the fact that this article does not function like a typical biography. The kid isn't notable for any other reason than this video, so the article is based on the video. Why add information that isn't relevant to the video? --Iamunknown 03:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to add here that the Arbitration Committee takes BLP very seriously; there was a recent arbitration case where the ArbCom ruled:

Implicit in the policy on biographies of living people is the understanding that Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

— TKD::Talk 02:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Do not use name. The name is not noteworthy to the story. The only reason this is noteworthy is because of the issue of the violation of privacy of a youth in school. Wikipedia should not join with one side of dispute in further naming him unless his identity is relevant, which it is not. I do not agree that editors must edit like amoral robots unless some policy specifically lays out to the letter of every possible circumstance how to be conscientiousness of privacy of private persons. If WP BLP does not say enough to protect school youths who become ridiculed media "celebrities" by some snark fluke like this, decency and fairness should be reasons enough not to further their problems by further invasion in WP articles. Venado 18:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I support putting it in for two reasons: for one, the article reads awkwardly with so many pronouns. The other is that his name has been heavily publicized by the media, so us leaving it out for privacy concerns is pointless. I don't think it will afford him any more privacy when googling "star wars kid" has his name on the first page. The only legitimate reason for leaving it out is notability, there's a difference between mentioning his name and giving him a wikipedia article. BLP seems to support what I'm saying, too. It covers both points.

I suppose the other way to handle this is make a wikinews entry with his name and link to it. 171.71.37.207 22:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Awkward wording is not a more important concern than the interests of a living person. You can't write a Wikinews entry on something which happened years ago. FCYTravis 22:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

But my second reason was that there's no reason to be concerned; if spreading his name is indeed harmful, it's already been done by many others, esp. those in the media. If it shows up on the first page of google results for "star wars kid" and we're leaving it out for privacy concerns, that's censorship. If it was buried in a legal document, that'd be another story. 69.12.143.197 16:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Argumentum ad populum - "if many find it acceptable, it is acceptable." That's a logical fallacy. We are not governed by what other people do. We abide by our own policies, and our own policies suggest that leaving it out is the best option. If you can make an argument that his name is so encyclopedically necessary to the article that it outweighs the privacy concerns inherent in this issue, then please do so. The non-argument that other Web sites list his name is irrelevant and will continue to be ignored. FCYTravis 16:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media,

The name has been widely disseminated, and has not been intentionally concealed outside of wikipedia. I admit, I haven't looked for it in scholarly journals. I was pointing out that according to BLP name and privacy concerns, since his name has been spread, our omission of it wouldn't afford him more privacy. I wasn't saying that since everyone else does it, so should we. 69.12.143.197 16:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The name has not been widely disseminated in mainstream reports. FCYTravis 18:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

See [13], [14], [15], and [16]. (Wired, USA Today, Globe and Mail, and BBC) 171.71.37.29 18:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream reports meaning anything other than a couple news stories. There's no loss of context, because the article isn't about his life and never will be. The default is to leave out, so please again tell us why it needs to be included. FCYTravis 18:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[17] VH1, 2007. It even mentions the suit and settlement in the clip. 171.71.37.29 18:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Webjunk, that paragon of sensitivity and class. Once again, the burden is on those who wish it to be included to explain why it is necessary for the article. FCYTravis 18:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you significantly change your original reply after signing it? It read:

Four years ago. Not today. We're not putting it in. FCYTravis 18:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream is mainstream, and the Globe and Mail article was in 2006. Which wikipedia policy makes omission the default? 171.71.37.29 18:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate it when users claim that their interpretation of BLP is the correct one and then set it in stone, and that all others fail due to logical fallacies such as Argumentum ad populum. The removal of the name as made unilaterally, and has been opposed. There are multiple sources mentioning the individual's name. Our prime concern should not be an ethical one, over whether the insertion of a name could prolong his victimisation, but whether or not the identity of the protagonist is a relevant piece of information for an encyclopedia. I say it is, his identity is no secret, nor will it disappear. In order to present a comprehensive article on the video, the star's identity should be made known. - hahnchen 23:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You're being very reasonable about this, and I have to respect that. Then again, I'm a little biased, here. I'll agree that the debate should be over whether inclusion of his name is warranted on the grounds of notability. 171.71.37.29 00:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• The BLP policy is clearly sensitive about privacy of private persons. WP:BLP1E addresses situation where an individual is otherwise not notable except for a single event. quote "Cover the event, not the person". If a short video of an unnamed school boy goofing in privacy of his own school just happens to leak out and go viral (student never gave permission to disseminate)--isnt the school boy unwittingly involved in a trivial media event due this sensitivity? He was anonymous in video which was the "single event". If he does not deserve this consideration in the policy, who does?Venado 17:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • True, but "cover the event, not the person" is vastly different than "cover the event and don't mention the person at all." The quote from WP:BLP1E is just meant to stop articles about internet memes and such from going into detailed biographical information on the person that isn't at all relevant to the event. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The event is covered. Naming the person could only achieve one thing: to continue the vindictive and inhuman bullying of this private individual. Wikipedia will not be used for that purpose. --Tony Sidaway 23:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I interpret "cover the event, not the person" as meaning don't give the person an article or make the article centered on him. I don't see any reason that policy means don't mention his name, though. Saying his name is part of covering the event, posting a biography at his own page is not. I second what Y|yukichigai said; no one is fighting to give him his own article, so bringing up WP:BLP1E is pointless. 69.12.143.197 02:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

He was bullied. That was the story. To cover the story with decency means to avoid facilitating the bullying. That is why his name is not in the article The story exists solely because of some anonymous assholes, who are not names in the article, We are not bullies. We will not name him. --Tony Sidaway 16:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"We will not name him." Who are you to make decisions on wikipedia and not be willing to discuss things? I'm not sure how including his name facilitates bullying. Wp:blp#Privacy_of_names covers this. 171.71.37.29 18:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Remind me what part of WP:DECENCY covers this. Or to cut to the point, remind me how making sure that subject coverage is "decent" isn't synonymous with censoring an article. Since insofar as we've been able to establish WP:BLP does not actually address this situation that seems to be the only justification for removing the information: an arbitrary notion that leaving it in might hurt or offend someone, which is a fairly cut-and-dry definition of censorship if I've ever heard one. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Who cares what his name was? It is not important to the story and the only purpose it serves is to make the dude's life hell. Don't show it. --Chuck Sirloin 19:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

How does it make his life hell? What percentage of people who read the article will actually talk to him? 171.71.37.29 20:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

All it takes is one. One person who reads it and gives the guy a hard time. The arguments for leaving it out outweigh any argument for its inclusion. -Chuck Sirloin 20:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If his name wasn't widely published, that'd be a valid point, but again, Wp:blp#Privacy_of_names states that it's different when the name hasn't been hidden and hasn't been distributed by the media. His name was far from hidden and published by media. Let's say he's applying for a job and someone Googles his name. All the results are about him being the Star Wars Kid. Realistically, he's not being protected by wikipedia omitting his name. Most of the arguments for leaving his name out come down to the end justifies the means. 171.71.37.29 00:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The name was recently added, and I removed it. I think that this MSNBC article is particularly revealing. The boy has gone through harassment and derision due to a video which he did not even agree to upload to the Internet. We do not need to contribute to that, and we can discuss the "Star Wars kid" Internet phenomenon in an encyclopedic manner without revealing his name. --Iamunknown 03:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You will note that the same article uses his name. In fact, I challenge you to find any article about the event that doesn't use his name. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 03:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article, from an online news source, does use the boy's name. Are we an online news source? I was under the impression that we are an encyclopedia. Our standards may and do differ from those of an online news source. --Iamunknown 03:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Red herring. All of the information on Wikipedia must be cited to other sources, online or no. Furthermore, what "standards" are you talking about that say his name needs to be omitted? WP:BLP only suggests we remove the name if it hasn't already been widely disseminated (it has) or the subject has gone to lengths to obscure his name from the general public (he hasn't). -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, all of the information on Wikipedia must be cited to sources, online or no. Are you asserting that means that we must omit nothing that a source includes?
• The boy has gone to great lengths, including a law suit, to do what is possible to preserve what privacy is left the conditions. Do you suggest that, because every online source that has ever reported the video has not retracted his name, that he has not attempted to retract his name? Do you actually think it possible, even if he wanted it?
• You may twist WP:BLP into suggesting that his name may not be omitted, but you are ignoring the spirit of the policy, which is a presumption in favor of privacy. We, you and I, can presume that the boy would prefer his name be private, even if the news media outlets have not honored this desire, can we not?
• How can you contribute to a situation that has landed the boy in a psychiatric ward? It is unconscionable. --Iamunknown 04:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

He's gone to great lengths? Really. Where? The only "evidence" you have to support that is the lawsuit he filed against the kids who uploaded it to Kazaa in the first place. As I've said before, that's a punitive measure, not a preventative one. You seem to think that he and his family have in ANY way attempted to stop his name from getting out; if that's the case, then where are the legal motions, the gag orders, anything? More to the point, if he doesn't want his name out there then why hasn't he sued any of the sites hosting his video to take it down, especially the one that offers a "make your own Star Wars kid remix" kit?

The fact is he and his family have made no efforts to prevent his name from getting out. Atop the fact that his name has been widely disseminated by the media WP:BLP does not come into play here, and furthermore I find it highly unlikely that this will "contribute to a situation that has landed the boy in a psychiatric ward," as you so emotionally put it. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I do not support such a quick reinsertion of his name. That's why we're discussing it.

"How can you contribute to a situation that has landed the boy in a psychiatric ward?"

Then how is having a page on the star wars kid any different from mentioning his name? Was the release of his name the root of the problems, or was it the release of the video? As long as this article is here, by your logic, we contribute to the situation. Even if we remove the links to the video, finding it is trivial. If you feel the spirit of BLP is to withhold his name so we're not contributing to his problems, than it's also in the spirit of BLP to delete the article. 69.12.143.197 05:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If his name is already out there, then it should be in the article. Wikipedia is not censored. How is his real name not encyclopedic (to the extent that the "star wars kid" is even encyclopedic at all? (Rayraymitts 00:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC))

I find it bizarre how his name is censored, yet the article uses references that still contains the individual's name. If his name is not to be used in the article, than the supporting references should also be void of his name. --Madchester 00:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's very weird many articles in mainstream (and other) news mention his name, and there hasn't been any attempt to withhold is name, but Wikipedia is debating doing just that. I'm actually curious when the idea came from. 70.135.135.25 05:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Tony, we've agreed to keep the name of the kid. I don't see how including the kid's name will do any harm, so... WhisperToMe (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

deleted opinion about humor

I deleted a section consisting of a single unsigned, misspelled and poorly punctuated one-line comment about the humor of the incident. This does not help to improve the article. VisitorTalk 15:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Numa Numa guy spoofs the Star Wars kid

Gary Brolsma has posted a video on YouTube in which he spoofs the Star Wars kid. link —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.47.216.137 (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC). I deleted an unsourced, unsigned, and libellous comment alleging that everyone has done something as embarrassing. VisitorTalk 15:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

First name only?

Would it be reasonable to include only the first name (and indeed what appears to be the name by which the subject is usually referred to online) in the article - ""Star Wars kid" is an Internet phenomenon which started when a video clip recorded by a fourteen-year-old French Canadian male high school student known as "[forename]" was shared online by a number of other students."" David Mestel^(Talk) 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That isn't a common name; it looks more like a handle. 69.12.143.197 00:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't get what your point is here; that's his name, like it or not. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

My point was mostly that it might be confusing for readers. 70.135.110.144 06:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC) (different IP, guy from before)

No part of his name is relevant to this article about bullying. --Tony Sidaway 07:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

How about the part where you identify the subject of the article? -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 08:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This person's name should not be mentioned in the article. Compare, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad, and see also the "basic human dignity" principles recognized in the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration. Newyorkbrad 18:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's a significant difference between mentioning only his first name, which is also how he's known online (and therefore possibly the handle readers will know him by), and his full name, which would allow him to be identified IRL. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If his first name were "Tony" or "David", that might come close to being a good argument. There is no reason to use any part of this name because this article is not about the person. --Tony Sidaway 00:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't read BLP that way. There's no reason to give him his own article, but names are just how we identify people. Star Wars Kid didn't make the video, he did, and he's certainly part of the topic enough to be mentioned. 171.71.37.29 19:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

My kids might well have made videos, too. Those videos might well have been as amusing and innocent as that made by Star Wars kid. As it happens, no piece of shit has taken these putative videos and publicised them, or if they have it still holds that further pieces of human excrement have not decided that this justifies the publication of their names. Even if they had done so, even if the vermin employed to produce newspapers had used that as an excuse to publicise my children's names, that would not excuse the abuse of my children on this encyclopedia. That is why we will not abuse that child (he was fourteen at the time) on this encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 01:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you state that "well will not...?" This is up for debate; who are you to make decisions without listening to the community?

By your logic, Star Wars Kid (the article) as as abusive as including his name; does this mean you support deletion of the article? 69.12.143.197 18:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Name debate

There are a few issues here, and they should be debated separately.

Encyclopedic

Don't debate this. The community has decided multiple times that this article is encyclopedic and shouldn't be deleted.

Notability

Disregarding privacy concerns, is his name notable enough to mention? If so, is it notable enough to warrent a separate article?

From Wikipedia:BLP:

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person.

Paragraph 2 states that a separate article is probably not warranted (I agree), but it implies that mentioning a name directly associated with an event is fine, barring other (privacy) concerns. If inclusion of a name was a concern, it probably would have been addressed in that paragraph.

In the section addressing privacy concerns, this sentence implies that names of people directly involved in an article's topic are indeed notable: "Editors should take...care when considering whether inclusion of the names of...individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." 171.71.37.29 20:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Privacy

Should his name be omitted due to privacy concerns?

From Wikipedia:BLP:

Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.

Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger.

In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page.

Wired, USA Today, Globe and Mail, BBC, VH1, and MSNBC have all published his name. I am not aware of any scholarly publication of his name, however. His name has been wideley diseminated by mainstream media of multiple countries, including Canada, where the event occurred. His name can be found in multiple pages, and on the results page, itself, on the first page of Google search results for "Star Wars Kid." His name appeared after the event in the context of the later lawsuit. No effort was made to keep his suppress his name in the lawsuit.

The arguments being presented in favor of omitting the name either focus on his privacy (addressed above), and the ethics of publishing his name causing him more anguish, harm, distress, etc. If this is the reason for omission, the article's presence must also cause him emotional problems. If we remove his name to protect his emotions, we should remove the article for the same reason, but both are clearly censorship. Once Wikipedia believes that censorship is justified as it protects people's emotions, is integrity as an encyclopedia suffers. 171.71.37.29 20:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The names has been used in scholarly sources. Specifically, New Scientist 195.2613 (July 21, 2007): p26(2). And this is relatively recently. His name is widely disseminated, I see no reason to keep it from the article.--Ssj4android (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Name debate - Wikipedia is not censored!!

Don't remove his name. ۝ ۞ ░ 20:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, BlueLotas. First, I've removed three words from your comment about Clinton and Lewinsky as inappropriate per WP:BLP. Second, we as editors may decide when or when not to include something - That is not "censorship", it is Wikipedia:Editorial discretion. Third, your arguments to include information in this article based on the fact that we do not omit information from other articles is a red herring and a logical fallacy. Focus on this article and the merits of the information you included, not on other articles. Fourth, your edits are not "minor", so please do not mark them as minor. Thank you, Iamunknown 21:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a red herring or a logical fallacy. The Hitler point was bad as BLP probably doesn't apply, but the Clinton example has some merit. Why should we concern ourselves with the Star Wars Kid's feelings when we don't with public figures'? The only logical fallacy I see is that BlueLotas might be assuming that we should show equal concerns for people's feelings in their biographies, not pick and choose whose feelings matter. 70.135.135.25 01:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the "public figures" are public, which makes huge difference both in law and in the evaluation. Public figures, by virtue of being such, have a reduced expectation of and right to privacy. I fail to see the encyclopedic value in adding the name (although it's not a big deal either, as it is mentioned in half the videos on YouTube).--Stephan Schulz 01:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

At best he is a limited public figure, thrust into the public spotlight under circumstances completely out of his control and for reasons not of his own choosing. This certainly entitles him to our respect, consideration and greater deference to his privacy and wish to leave the spotlight, per the BLP policy. FCYTravis 06:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Except that his name is so widely disseminated that he has little chance of this happening. Besides, if he wants to leave so badly, he may change his name. We do not have to report that he changed his name, if that happens. We would use his original name. Any posts stating "HE CHANG HIS NAME TO DISS!!!" would be deleted due to OR. WhisperToMe 23:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope that's the point I made - it's certainly the point I tried to make. He is not a public figure and as such has a higher expectation of privacy. He is also a kid, again raising the legal and moral level of privacy protection. --Stephan Schulz 20:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Schulz, Star Wars kid is a public figure. He may not like this, but his status as a public figure is irreversible - Also his status as a minor does not matter UNLESS ALL reliable publications choose to omit his name; then that would make mentioning his name Wikipedia:Original research. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed your absolutely inappropriate and disgusting comparisons from this page, BlueLotas. Do not replace them. Despicable. FCYTravis 16:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• I would remind people that our legal counsel is now Mike Godwin, so violating Godwin's Law in the context of debate on talk pages is now self-referential as well as unbelievably lame. Good grief. Guy (Help!) 07:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

FCYTravis and Iamunknown, what part of "don't edit others' comments" do you not understand? BlueLotas is making a comparison, and regardless of how much you like the comparison it is not acceptable to remove it. FCYTravis, you in particular should know better, particularly because this kind of craptastic behavior can get you banned. Leave the comments alone. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 11:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If removing arguably-libelous comparisons to Nazis will get me banned, then Wikipedia is not worth using and supporting. Editing others' comments is completely acceptable when those comments can be construed as to violate WP:BLP, which prohibits talkspace from being used as an attack platform. I find it utterly shocking that anyone on Wikipedia would be so "craptastic" as to defend this hit-and-run non-argument. FCYTravis 18:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how this comparison libels anything. Hitler ate - so do I. He was probably vain to a certain degree, and would prefer not to see negative information about him spread around - so, I expect, is Clinton. The mere mentioning of Hitler's name is not liblel. The comparison may have been in bad taste, but it was making a valid (if mistaken, see my comment about) point. I see no reason to deviate from WP:TPG's rule to not edit other comments. And even if there ever is such a reason, always indicate such an edit directly, so that others are not mislead about the discussion. --Stephan Schulz 01:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. ۝ ۞ ░ 02:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it unfortunate that editors would be considering further damaging the life of the private individual involved in this video clip by publicizing his name. This community has decided that taking into account the real-world impact of our encyclopedic articles on the actual human beings who are their subject is a legitimate consideration in making editorial considerations, particularly when we are dealing with people whose limited fame or notoriety derives primary from victimization by others. See generally, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff refer to July 3, 2007 revision in page history, principles 2 and 3; compare, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad. Newyorkbrad 15:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Brad, his name has been widely disseminated - Because of that, "private" does not apply to him. WhisperToMe 23:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that we should further the dissemination and victimization. Again, I'll quote from the arbitration case that Brad referred to:

Implicit in the policy on biographies of living people is the understanding that Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. [emphasis added]

There is no significant loss of context, really, by omitting the specific name of the individual. The notability of this matter stems not inherently from the individual per se, but from the way in which the video was disseminated and the ramifications of that dissemination. — TKD::Talk 23:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There is still context that is lost by omitting his name though. You and I may disagree on how much context is lost, but there is still some loss all the same. Given that his name is already known (the cat is out of the bag, as it were) WP:BLP doesn't mandate his name be omitted, and given that the article not only loses context but also is of lower quality (and sounds awkward to boot) due to the omission of the name inclusion wins out. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 02:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're wrong. The article does not include his name and will not include his name. This has been rehashed over and over. Find another battle to fight, preferably one that doesn't involve a teenage kid getting laughed at on the Interwebs. FCYTravis 02:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we've heard your position. It's getting repetitive and counter-productive. You don't own this article, and you don't have the final say on what goes either. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 03:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been a month. Nobody's put his name back in. Quod erat demonstrandum. FCYTravis 03:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That's because we have certain admins hanging around, spreading FUD about how any mention of his name will go against WP:BLP and will result in a user ban. Call it an expansion of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle if you must. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 17:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That's correct, and I say that because I believe it, and I'm willing to go to ArbCom to defend that belief. Anyone inserting his name will be reverted without recourse to 3RR or, if necessary, the page will be protected or the user in question will be blocked for disruption. If you think ArbCom will back you on it, file the case now. Nothing's stopping you. However, I think you and I both know that it would be a waste of time because ArbCom is not likely to sanction the use of his name. The ball's in your court. FCYTravis 04:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to think that it wasn't reinserted because people have respect for the process and are being cautious until there is some level of consensus. FCYTravis, who are you to say (and repeat) "it's not going in?" That's not how Wikipedia works. 69.12.143.197 20:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

My $0.02: Unless there is some court order restricting the use of his name (AFAIK, he used his actual name instead of filing an anonymous suit), I see no reason to withhold it. I mean, only one out of the eight 'translations' (the Japanese version) has no mention of the boy's name at all, and all the refs have it too. It's awkwardness for no reason. -MarkKB 10:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the quote "That doesn't mean that we should further the dissemination and victimization." is pointless - the ought ends when the media dissemminates the information. Heard of the phrase "The Damage is Done?" The Damage is Done - Furthering his name will cause no more damage to this boy. His name has been disseminated on reliable sources, he has already filed and won his suits, and the effect of his name spread is irreversible. I understand your will to charity, but Wikipedia should only try to help others if the effect is possible. There will be no benefits for trying to hide a name that everyone knows already. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know it, and I don't care to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The name is staying out. --Tony Sidaway 05:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that anyone making even a single revert after stating "Anyone inserting his name will be reverted without recourse to 3RR..." has both

1. Clearly misundersdtood the Three-revert rule and
2. Will be susceptible to a non-controversial block.

Stating that you're going to edit-war to prove your point might even be blockable action before you make a single revert, under a more liberal interpretation. Stating "BLP" is not magic pixie-dust that let's one cast aside ideas like collaberative editing. Additionally, the use of automated reversion ([18][19]) does not leave a meaningful edit summary, and should be avoided other than for vandalism.
CygnetSaIad (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're getting way off the subject here. There is no question of us restoring the name to the article. If some people engage in misconduct, that's a separate matter. --Tony Sidaway 04:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Not at all. When the editors insisting that the name will not be replaced are threatening disruptive behaviour to keep the name out, it's on topic. And, as nicely as possible, simply stating (and re-stating) your opinion as fact lends nothing to the argument. If you've nothing substantative to add, silence is a better option. There are several arguments presented for keeping the name out, several for putting it in. Stonewalling is not an acceptable method for consensus editing. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You've misunderstood the BLP if you think it permits the hounding of this young man. --Tony Sidaway 23:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I-see-what-you-did-there. When a person ignores the point and just goes on with their own, utterly unrelated point, reasonable observerers will wonder why.

1. No one here has magical powers, allowing them "extra special" understading of the living persons policy,
2. Each case is discussed on its merits,
3. The individuals supporting the name staying off have, in some cases, declared they will violate wikipedia policies to keep it off,
4. The individuals supporting the name staying off have, in other cases, stated that their opinion-as-fact is sufficient to keep it off.

Without giving any personal support to either replacing or removing the name at this time, I observe only that the attempts to keep the "moral high ground" by the keep-it-off camp are at odds with their (collective) behaviour in this dicussion.
CygnetSaIad (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please stop splurging these itemized lists onto the page in respose to every comment? This page is for discussing the article, not endless nitpicking. --Tony Sidaway 00:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Name debate - recap

The arguments for including the name appear to be:

• It's widely publicised, and
• This is an article about the "kid" and it's senseless to omit his name.

The arguments for including the supressing name appear to be:

• It's "against BLP" without making any more accurate reference than that,
• It's cruel to do so, and
• "We will not allow it."

Did I miss anything there? Because, based upon the facts as presented to date, it's not a very compelling case that has been made for keeping the name out.
CygnetSaIad (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's it in a nutshell. I wouldn't have a problem with it if there had been, say, an official request from the kid or his family; typically that's where BLP comes into play. Right now though there's been nothing from the family, no indication they want his name hidden, or even care. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP is not a policy which is only invoked upon request. It is in force at all times anywhere on the encyclopedia. FCYTravis (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• FCYTravis - Can you please be more specific about which part of the policy it is that you're invoking? Because I've looked over it in great detail, and I do not see anything that applies. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about where the policy might apply. I corrected the misapprehension that BLP only applies when there is a request from an aggrieved party. BLP does not require that our screwups, libels and privacy violations (and believe me, we have plenty of all of the above) be reported to us by an outside party first. Indeed, the policy is designed to forestall the negative publicity which comes from outside parties discovering defamatory information by requiring that we give these articles the utmost in scrutiny and care. FCYTravis (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, considering that above you stated you would revert "without recourse to 3RR" to keep the name off, can you please now state specifically which portion of the policy you believe applies here? - CygnetSaIad (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

From my rather uninvolved perspective I see a good case for WP:DICK and WP:IAR. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason that I ask this is, of course, that it has been extensively (if vaugely) claimed that not only does the inclusion of the name violate the sledge-hammer-subtle policy of BLP, but that as such the three revert rule doesn't apply. From my point of view the wikilawyering was begun by FCYTravis: Dick and IAR don't allow you to revert at will. As I note below, the appearance above is that this "enforcement" is being used in lieu of any real discussion. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Leaving the name out is a good compromise between giving comprehensive coverage and not being unnecessarily cruel. This article really isn't about the person, it's about the video. And while the star of the video is an important part of the video, it's a video that is usually seen as inherently mocking and disparaging, and of a person who was a kid while it was being filmed. He did not intend the video to be widely distributed as it has been. As several have noted, the name is available to anyone who wants to follow any of the many sources given as links. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Your list of arguments "against" misses at least one - the kids right to privacy. It was violated when the video was released, and is again violated when we repeat the name. The kid is not a public figure and not independently notable. The article gains nothing by adding the name. Hence, we should leave it out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's have a debate about just how much we agree with each other. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

;-). I was trying to reply to Mr. Salad, though my reply was not perfectly placed... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I concur that the "right to privacy" argument should be included in any rational, respectful discussion of this. It's unfortunate that to date very little rational respectful discussion has taken place. If we can dispense with the pronouncements by fiat or claim that the BLP policy forbids us using the name, then we're more meaningfully able to examine the editorial decision on how we balance right to privacy against complete and meaningful coverage.
CygnetSaIad (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud, just use the [forename] [surname] instead, ive seen it many times before on youtube and the internet, and i dont see those people getting sued, do i now? No. But, whatever, you can do whatever you want, im not going to stop you from destroying this article, or making it worse.--71.116.25.134 (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Some recent edits to this page

I removed all references to the name of the subject of this phenomenon. I hope we'll all move forward into 2008 in acceptance that the actions of a child of 14 several years ago are not the subject of the article, but rather the phenomenon that emerged through public exploitation of his childish play. Wikipedia isn't about rubbing salt into the wound. All relevant information about the phenomenon is available, but we also have to respect the privacy of the person who is the victim of this disturbing group phenomenon. --Tony Sidaway 23:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I see I've been reverted on the article. I hope those who are doing this will rethink their disgusting behavior next year. I have to bow out of this. I've done my bit. --Tony Sidaway 23:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Gizmo Rizzo ain't 14 anymore folks

Now that this ex-twerp is a legal adult, hows about we put his damn name back in the article already, huh? 70.190.70.128 (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any logical reason to NOT include his name, it doesn't make any sense not to. The boy wasn't ever troubled over the use of his name, he was troubled over the video, so it's hypocritical to keep the article about the video but then preach about how not including his name is "saving him" from "further harm" or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.170.4 (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Names of individuals filing lawsuit

Earlier I included the names of the individuals filing the lawsuit mentioned in this article, but was summarily reverted. I'd like an explanation, please. I took steps to include information that is encyclopedic, notable, non-controversial and a matter of public record. Someone want to let me know what I did wrong? Can we at least discuss before my changes are removed? Bistromathics (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We are not putting the names of the persons related to the case into this article. That's a long-established consensus. FCYTravis (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Putting the names of the person who brought the lawsuit inevitably identifies the name of the person in the video. His entire life has been severely damaged by the unwanted publicity associated with the video, and we have an ethical obligation not to add to the damage for little or no encyclopedia gain. See generally, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff; Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad; Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute#Outside view by Newyorkbrad. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I recommend putting in the case number, and city and state in which it was filed, so that anyone who wants to obtain the information from a reliable source can do so easily, without the effect being a wiki-based google-bomb on his name. 70.190.70.128 (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Name Debate Revisted

At what point would people consider putting the name back in the article? The original contention was that the individual was a child. Do we change this once he becomes an adult? The name itself is already over the internet. It is of my opinion that once he turns 18, we should place the name in the article. It is unencyclopedic without the name. Alyeska (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's never going to be a consensus to put his name in. FCYTravis (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not? I can understand the original reason for witholding his name. But why now? What protections does he deserve that others do not get? Why should we withold his name? Alyeska (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is his name important? We describe the meme and the furor around it. Given that he has chosen to leave the public spotlight, as the minor victim of a privacy violation, we will not republish his name. It is not necessary for an encyclopedic treatment of the issue. FCYTravis (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is the name important? Thats a particiularly odd question to ask. Thats like asking why the names of the Apollo astronauts are important. It is important because this article is about the kid. This is more then just the meme. The sheer fact that it lead to legal action by the family is a clear indication of this. The real names of other people involved in internet meme's are used. The stated reason for witholding the name in this article is because the person is a juvenile. As this is no longer the case, there is no grounds to withold the name. Alyeska (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your logic is faulty. The actions of minors who, for example, have been adjudicated in juvenile court cases, are not made public upon that person's reaching the age of majority. There is no reason for us to republicize the name of someone who got made fun of on the Interwebs when he was 14. FCYTravis (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory example. The kid was not a criminal. Victim reports are not sealed like child criminal reports. There is no reason to leave his name out as that is unencylcopedic. Alyeska (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, its not. The kid is not notable, only the event is. There is no useful gain from violating his privacy. His name is simply not relevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The kid isn't notable? Well then the event isn't either. The event is directly caused by the kid. Thats like saying the V-Tech shooter isn't notable, only the shooter was. Thats bull and you know it. His name is entirely relevant. The article talks about the kid and the fact that he even filed a lawsuit against other people. Leaving out his name is contrary to this being an encyclopedia. Alyeska (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I agree, the event isn't encyclopedic. But a compromise has been established - we cover the event but respect the person's privacy and leave the name out. FCYTravis (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

But the privacy of the people killed in the V-Tech shooting isn't respected. Alyeska (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

For one, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a very good argument. But more importantly, they are, as you point out, dead, which somewhat reduces their need for privacy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

My comments are above and I stand by them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Every single point regarding the name debate...

...has been repeated and rehashed ad nauseum. I haven't seen a single new idea or opinion from any post later than 2005. Must we keep this up? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, actually. The people who have been arguing against including the boy's name have been citing chapter and verse of Wikipedia policy, which isn't especially valuable when you consider that the opposing group clearly thinks the policy itself is wrong. The people arguing in favor of including the boy's name have been doing so with an unclear set of motives; there is little to no value gained through the inclusion of the boy's name in the article, so it's difficult to sort out why that's preferable.

The real question here involves weighing encyclopedic benefit against ethical concerns, which is like comparing apples and oranges. The article is encyclopedic insofar as it is concerned with a notable and relevant cultural phenomenon, and the identity of the related individual is certainly worthy of mention. However, the benefit gained by citing his name in the article likely doesn't outweigh the potential harm done by doing so. This isn't a question of Wikipedia being sued, or of the child being mocked forever and ever, it's simply a question of whether individual Wikipedia editors want to be able to stand up and say, "Yes, I prefer that he not be permitted to retain his dignity." That's not something I'm comfortable in saying, and I challenge anyone who is to consider how they'd feel if their more embarrassing moments were immortalized on YouTube.

Down the memory hole

Wikipedia, where the truth was there 5 revisions ago.

I know who [forename] [surname] is. I also know who Claire Swire, Gary Brolsma, Mahir Çağrı, Roger Chan Yuet Tung, Tsuji Natsumi, Crystal Gail Mangum, John Dallas Lockehart and Lisa McPherson are, although like [forename], there are "concerned people" who would rather you didn't know who they were. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. These people's names will live on forever. What deeply disturbs me is the reference materials that would confirm what I know are being edited by The Party to omit anything The Party doesn't want people to be able to confirm.

It's a frightening future. Who would have thought a selling point of newspapers would be that, provided you keep them under lock and key, their editors can't edit them to comply with today's convenient truths? 80.41.241.166 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, quit being so melodramatic about it. This isn't 1984, we're not trying to edit reality to suit our own purposes. We're simply trying to be sensitive, and that's not unreaonable. What benefit is gained from including his name in the article? Easy identification? So you know who he is, in case you bump into him on the street? Like I stated above, this is an issue of encyclopedic value vs. ethics. In my opinion, and in the opinion of several other vocal editors above, the value of including his name is not significant enough to outweigh our own ethical obligations. It just isn't. Until someone comes up with a better reason to include it than "Well, what about Pol Pot?" (which is pretty much exactly what you said, only you used more hip and edgy names), the name ought to stay out. Oh, and incidentally, you might benefit here from the editable nature of Wikipedia by going back and removing Gary Brolsma's name from your list there. As he's currently trying to profit from the "Numa Numa" craze, I'm pretty sure he wants you to know who he is.Bistromathics (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You see it as "being sensitive", I see it as wrecking a reference work by arbitrarily removing facts, which disadvantages a whole load more people. Have a look at the Globe and Mail source (it's in the article). Note that the Globe and Mail is one of Canada's most respected broadsheets. What fact is so important that it's the first three words of the article? 80.41.241.166 (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree here. Although the people against using his name are obviously well-intentioned, you are not protecting his privacy by excluding his name from the reference. It does absolutely nothing to prevent people from learning his identity - it just means that readers have to go elsewhere to find it, which they can easily do (e.g. by following the links in the article). The appropriate question is not "why do we want to put his name in the article?" as I believe that it is self-evident that an article on a person would include his name, but rather "is there any benefit to the person in not including his name?" and there just isn't in this case. 128.135.28.7 (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

At least this debate came down from one angry admin assuming control of the page ignoring consensus and only quoting policy, to people actually discussing the page. There are numerous reasons why the name should be in, and numerous reaons why the name should be kept out. The only way to solve this debate is to have someone representing wikipedia itself interpret the goal and all relevant policies in this case. By that I don't mean an editor, or even some administrator. Wikipedia has avenues of arbitration, doesn't it? I'm sure none of those avenues involve an edit war or an admin threatening to lock the page and ban any editors.

The idea that we must protect someone's identity as a sort of ethical responsibility is dangerous. Numerous pages could be edited due to someone's moral code or culture. Any of those edits would be harmful and contrary to the goal of this website. Wikipedia is not meant to be an extension of any moral, cultural, religious, or ethical system. For that reason, I suggest this case be evaluated from a neutral point of view by a "higher-up" to determine how the policies and goals apply to the issue of whether to show this kid's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.168.201.1 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

900 million

900 million views? :S Helios 09:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead paragraph, being a summary, does not usually have cites. See the first main paragraph ("Incident") for the citation from the BBC [20]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Weezer's Pork and Beans Video

According to this article: http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/05/director-behind.html - The Star Wars Kid is given a nod in the video, but he's not in it. Patorjk (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Image issue

According to FCYTravis, the current consensus on the page is to disallow screen captures of the video in question from being placed in the article out of a desire to prevent this particular issue from being further sensationalized. Frankly, I find that viewpoint rather ridiculous. This meme has been sensationalized about as far as it is going to go, and having a screenshot of a video which can be found at thousands of other sites across the web is not going to make a bit of difference at this point.

I can see the point of trying to prevent the posting of multiple screenshots of the various alterations which have been made to the original video, but I think the fair-use rules on this site regarding the number of images per page would cover that already. I think having one small screenshot would fall well within fair-use. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The image should go back in, as should his name. We're not protecting anything by withholding information that is already widely circulated. WP is not censored. 201.50.213.170 (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The policy that we're not censored does not overrule other established policy, particularly the biographies of living persons policy. That policy is not negotiable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP obviously applies to revealing the guy's name, but I don't really see how having an image from the actual video (which is the subject of this article after all) should be affected by those guidelines. While his name isn't generally known, the video is. As I mentioned before, the video is available all over the internet, and has even been shown on national television on several occasions. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. Considering the fact that deleted BLP concern name has been printed in multiple news sources already as shown above, I don't really see the reason for keeping his name out of the article either. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The top level BLP policy mandate is that unsourced or poorly sourced information in living people's biographical articles goes, period. Other aspects of the policy include a respect for personal privacy in matters where generally not notable individuals (those who, for example, are only known due to a single event and its subsequent press coverage) are caught up in notable events.

The event here was notable - the person themselves was not. And the person themself is seeking to minimize press coverage and attention.

This policy came from Jimbo, has been supported by the Board and the Foundation legal department, OTRS staff, Arbcom, and Administrators as a whole. It's settled policy, and part of the BLP policy. I'm here and Travis was here because the article has come to OTRS attention. This is a big deal.

Not everyone likes all aspects of BLP, but it's the law here. It applies here on the name. That's how it stands. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Your post completely misses the point. No one is disputing that BLP is policy, we are however arguing that keeping his name/image here does not go against it. The information is referenced so your first point is moot. Further, deleted BLP concern name is central for this article since he IS the starwars kid, so the information is extremely pertinent and not tangential. Finally, the policy states that Wikipedia is not in the business of outing people as a tabloid would, and I agree with that. In this case however, we're not outing anything since his name has been public for ages. Besides the points you made that I just rebuked, is there any other part of BLP that you think would especifically forbid the inclusion of his name here? I've read the whole of it more than once and couldnt find any section that would be relevant. His name also clearly passes the inclusion test. 201.50.213.170 (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first, and will not be the last, case where a poorly notable individuals' name was kept out of Wikipedia under BLP. The policy does apply. Even to some people whose names are in fact widely available under Google et al. There is no press coverage on him outside the context of the Star Wars Kid coverage - he's not notable other than that.

Continuing to use his name here in the discussion is also a violation of the policy. I am editing your comment above to remove it. Please don't use it again. Further use will be considered wilful disregard of BLP policy and is a blockable offense, for which I will block your IP address from editing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

To expand on this: the BLP section in question is Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_names. Please review it if you're participating in this discussion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP1E does apply in this context, and neither the name nor the image belong in the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. It seems to me the relevant passages of the "privacy of names" would be:

“ When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases) ”

And the "not widely disseminated" caveat is easily demonstrated as untrue, since his name was and is reported in the New York Times [21], The Times UK (twice) [22] [23], the San Francisco Chronicle [24], CNN [25], BBC (twice) [26] [27], NBC [28], Newsday [29], MSNBC [30], CBS News [31], Time (magazine) [32], New York (magazine) [33], The Village Voice [34], Salon.com [35], Rolling Stone [36], The Huffington Post (twice) [37] [38], CNET Networks (twice) [39] [40], The Sydney Morning Herald (at least three times) [41] [42] [43], the Daily Mail [44], The Globe and Mail [45], Metro UK [46], Rupert Murdoch's News Limited [47], The Sun [48], Canada's national public radio (twice) [49] [50], Newsweek [51], ZDNet [52], New Scientist [53], VH1's Web Junk 20 [54], USA Today (twice) [55] [56], Wired (twice) [57] [58], Reader's Digest [59], guardian.co.uk [60], Radar [61], Canwest (twice) [62] [63], National Public Radio [64] (on-air mention), Ars Technica [65], and even, if you want to count them, major blogs like Daily Kos [66].

Not to mention virtually every other version of this article in Wikipedias of other languages [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73].

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation even used his real name as the answer to an online trivia question.

These articles are from a wide variety of sources and cover a wide range of time. You can find articles reporting his name as early as 2003, and, by my estimation, as recently as May 29, 2008, in The Courier-Mail [74]. When all other reputable news sources have printed and continue to print, over time, the subject's real name, the "omit name" argument doesn't seem to have much solid ground to stand on. So far as I can tell, virtually every time a major media outlet mentions "Star Wars kid", they mention the subject by name. And those that didn't initially, eventually do, as the subject's apparent enduring newsworthiness seems to have been established. For example, in 2003, the New York Times was referring to him only by his first name [75], but by 2005 it had joined the rest of the outlets on this list by printing his full name [76]. Ford MF (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And, after taking the time to collect those mentions, I would strenuously argue against the notion that the kid isn't notable (outside the event, that is), as an awful lot of those articles cited aren't about "star wars kid", but cyber-bullying, and how he's become a poster-child for it. Ford MF (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

To the extent that those other sources unnecessarily publish that person's name, they damage their reputation. Let's not be so eager to jump into the mud-hole with them. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, if only the New York Times would clean up its act, people would take it seriously as a newspaper! I'm not really sure how there's any information to support the statement that any of the above news organs have had their reputation tarnished with tawdriness.

Seriously though, I think the point here is that the NYT, CBS, BBC, CBC, ABC, et al, are not avatars of slushy, tabloid coverage, they are news professionals and not one of them feel there is the need for an epithet like Central Park Jogger in this case. The provisions of Wikipolicy that keep being cited are for people whose names are not widely known or reported on. This guy's name was and is (he's had a recent spurt of coverage again thanks to Weezer) reported VERY widely. Our refusal to write it here can only strike readers as weird and unprofessional. Ford MF (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, it might be praised as being entirely appropriate. See this recent Times article by Jonathan Zittrain which specifically lauds the decision by WP editors to withhold the name in the article. [77]Slp1 (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The article makes some interesting points, but is essentially naive when it comes to proposing solutions. No one could have seen that video and imagined it was anything besides private. Hell everyone now knows for 100% certain it's private, and yet it keeps getting talked about. The article's author thinks putting some kind of file tag will trump prurient interest? In his dreams. The author is also disingenuous in using USA Today as an example of the perfidious coverage of the kid's name, when USA Today is a news organ most people already think of as being barely news. Had he said "Wikipedia 1, NYT 0", it would have been a little different. Also, yeah, lauding the repression of the kid's name while publishing his face is an irony bordering on crass hypocrisy. It's also funny that the stills published aren't from the original tape, but from one of the later fan animations of it. Ford MF (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Do I have to mention the irony of him congratulating wikipedia for withholding the name while at the same time splashing three images of the kid right atop of the article? 189.104.5.169 (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You say that USA Today is "news organ most people already think of as being barely news" and yet you would like us to emulate them by including his name/photo here? Would you would really suggest a score of Wikipedia 0 USA Today 0 would be good, and something to aim for? And funnily enough, I had occasion to correspond with the author about the article and the photos, and he indicated he had strongly protested their inclusion. As a result of their publication, he updated his score to "Wikipedia 2, Mainstream media 0". --Slp1 (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

USA Today is hardly the only source cited in this article. And as for what I would like, I would like Wikipedia to emulate standards of professionalism, and when it comes to professional sources of information, Wikipedia rests in the very, very slim minority on this subject.

Also when you talked to that cat, you might have let him know his proposed solution is ludicrous. Ford MF (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The video was created for personal use, not for publication, so it's extremely unlikely that any us of it or derived material would qualify under fair use. Even putting aside the separate privacy issues, this is a copyright infringement matter. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Name inclusion

Should the kid's name be included in the article? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 04:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Given the great number of reputable news sources who have already published it as shown above, keeping his name out of the article based on Wikipedia:BLP is completely nonsensical. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Fixing it forever on Wikipedia (which unlike the other sources is intended to be around for a very long time) would compound the damage already done, the name of the person is not material to the subject, and the name of the person is not known outside this one incident. He is entitled to his privacy. We can't stop other sources publishing his name, but we can avoid making things worse. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So, what your saying is that we should keep his name out of the article just to avoid further humiliation? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 14:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. We're not going to enable, or join in with, the thugs who do that kind of thing. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As exemplified by the sources above, the kid is internationally famous. His name should clearly be included seen as how it has been published by such respectable sources as the NYT and the Times. Bottom line: Its referenced, its factual, its notable, its public: It goes in 189.104.34.217 (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! Leaving his name out of the article would be like leave "Gary Brolsma" out of Numa Numa. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 14:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary Brolsma is a self-publicist who submitted a video to a public website. This fellow (who is far from a household name) is a private individual who once made a private video recording of himself for his own entertainment. Now if you're going to argue that it would be okay for you to publish the names of my minor children on Wikipedia because somebody posted a family photograph on the web, I am here to tell you that you're wrong. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Leaving his name out of the article would be like leaving Michael Vick out of the Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation. Granted, the video is the center of the article, but deleted BLP concern is the center of the video, so does it not make sense to add his name? If we left his name out just to avoid him further embarrassment, that would be like saying that a retired politician hosted An Inconvenient Truth. Also, might I point out that when you google his name, WP is the first thing to come up. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 15:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Vick was indicted in two different jurisdictions, and tried and convicted in one of them. Al Gore is a professional politician and environmental campaigner who published a film under his own name. To compare either of them to a private citizen who, as a legal minor, made a private video, is inappropriate. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so your opposed to adding his name because it would cause deleted BLP concern further embarrassment on the grounds that he is a minor. Is that correct? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 16:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm opposed to adding the name because it's fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy, full stop. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Care to explain? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 16:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps it is time to turn this argument around and ask those arguing against name inclusion if they can produce any recent news coverage that demonstrates any professional journalist feels it necessary or prudent to withhold the kid's name when mentioning him or the incident. Are there any? As I mentioned previously, a lot of them used to use only his first name, but as of 2005 of so that seems to have stopped, and since then his full name has been the journalistic norm. I'm not kidding though. I've done the work to demonstrate the company we would be keeping in printing the name, why doesn't someone do the same, and show major news coverage that withholds the name? Ford MF (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What difference would the opinion of journalists make? They do not determine Wikipedia policy. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So you're essentially uninterested with how Wikipedia interfaces with the real world, you just like rules a lot? Ford MF (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And anyway, snark aside, the opinion of journalists matter because WP:BLP is essentially a formulation of journalistic ethics for the Wikipedia community. It is not a magical "other" value system, it is fundamentally the same set of ideas that keeps the names of rape victims out of the papers. Now, IANAJ, but I think I'm willing to admit that cats on the NYT payroll know a lot more about journalistic ethics than me or most of my colleagues here. And they seem to think that printing the name is the professional thing to do. Ford MF (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm intensly interested in how Wikipedia interfaces with the real world, which is why I support the Wikipedia policy that says we don't get down in the mud and roll around in it. As well as the obvious benefits, avoiding doing harm in Wikipedia articles means we don't get an urge to vomit when we think of our involvement in it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And thirdly, the assertion that those other, easily Google-able sources (incl. the NYT online archives) are not intended to be permanent repositories of information is preposterous. Newspapers haven't been fish and chip paper since the internet was invented. Sure, Wikipedia is the first information hit, but Wired is only two or three behind it here. Ford MF (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

How would adding his name be "getting down in the mud and rolling around in it?" RC-0722 ^361.0/1 17:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth emphasizing that the guy has made no attempt to conceal his name from publication, as can be seen Here and in a number of the other citations provided above. If the individual himself is obviously fine with putting his name in the public record, why should we here be against it? - Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, so far I've only seen one person in this discussion opposed to adding his name. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 19:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Make that two. As I see it, the name adds no significant value to the article. The person in question is not independently notable. There is no good reason to violate his privacy. I've yet to see a substantial argument to why we should include the name - only arguments why we should not exclude it. What important information is added to this article by adding the name? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You're essentially questioning the value of including names in any article that's not specifically biographical. What value is added to the Kitty Genovese article (which has a biographical title, but fits as well into BLP1E as well as this does) by printing her name? Why bother mentioning names at all? Ford MF (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And three (not counting all the people in the many discussions above). I'm not convinced that we need to lower our standards just because its printed elsewhere. The article doesn't seem to be missing anything important by not including the name. Shell ^babelfish 20:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how including his name would be somehow "lowering our standards" You, infact, dont have an argument 189.104.36.78 (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Call me number four. The name doesn't add anything to the article, and does come at a cost (of harm to the subject). WP:BLP requires us to measure the value of information that might violate the spirit of "do no harm" against the harm done. Here, there just isn't value to including the name. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, if I'd known this would happen, I would have chosen a less wordy username. Something pithy, like Spartacus. :) --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I am perplexed. I am failing to see how mentioning the name, deleted BLP concern is hurting his reputation. I am failing to see how mentioning deleted BLP concern is "lowering our standards" Mr. Kinney, as a leading source of information people will read this article attempting to find out who the "Star wars kid" is. You and your colleagues have stated that we aren't missing anything by stating his name, when we actually are. Granted, the article is about the video, but deleted BLP concern is the subject of the video. The catch, is about the play, but why do we mention who threw the pass and who caught the ball? Is it lowering our standards to say that Gary Brolsma was the "kid" dancing to Dragostea din tei? Please explain your reasoning. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 23:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that i. including the name does not do him any harm, and ii. leaving the name out does do the article some harm. Could you explain your basis for believing ii.? I don't see any rationale in this entire conversation for what is added to the article by including the name. It doesn't increase the reader's understanding of the incident in any way. The harm it does is that, if his name is mentioned in Wikipedia, any Google search for his name by anybody is going to lead off with the Wikipedia article about this video. That's harm. Now, it's probable (I haven't checked) that a Google search for his name is already dominated by video-related results. And that's a problem for him. All we can do is not exacerbate it. In summary, including the name does him harm, and I haven't seen any argument for how leaving the name out hurts the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Doing a google search of somebody's name and having that search take one to a WP article is not harmful. Also, doing a google search of his anme already produces WP as the first result. 2. People want to know who the kid is, and as a leading source of information, we should provide the information. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 01:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasticidealist, I don't really see how you can possibly argue that leaving out his name does the article no harm. I would think leaving any pertinent information out of an encyclopedia article harms it by its very absence. His name is most certainly pertinent information because he is the sole creator and "star" of the video which is the subject of this article! -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Imagine this: one day you happen to make a video recording in which, unconsciously, you make a movement with your hand that appears to involve you picking your nose and eating the contents. An internet phenomenon develops around the posting of that private video to the internet without your knowledge or permission. Everywhere you go you are identified as "Nosepicker". Now tell me, (what's your name again? My name is Tony Sidaway) why it would be okay for someone engage in bullying using Wikipedia as a proxy. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A. Mentioning the name of a person "starring" in an internet phenomenon is not bullying. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 01:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with that statement. There is no ethical argument to be made for propagating further embarrassment. Just because we can doesn't always mean we should. Shell ^babelfish 02:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy and I make five and six. Please consider that many senior administrators and the site's founder have indicated that policy applies here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that if one finds an editor actively describing the actions of a private individual in terms of stardom, I wonder if that editor might perhaps be watching too much trash television. What we do is private, until we choose to make it public or we do something of public concern. A child playing with a stick is merely charming; if vile and stupid people steal the private recording make it into a tragedy for the child, we may want to write about the tragedy. But we will never condone or further the vile impulse that turned a child's game into an act of bullying. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Policy as applies

Please read: Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy, especially WP:BLP1E and Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy of names.

That is not advisory. BLP is fundamental English Wikipedia policy. It is not up for debate here.

It clearly states that for people who have only been notable for a single event, Wikipedia should cover the event not the person and should respect their privacy, to the extent of witholding the name if sensitive.

The arguments above that we should include it anyways are explicitly arguing that we should violate or ignore the standing BLP policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the straw man, but no thanks. The thicket of links above I think demonstrate that even the most august of journalistic sources--or rather, a very large number of august journalistic sources--do not believe harm is caused by naming the subject of this meme. No one is arguing: Yeah, it harms him, but screw this kid. The argument is whether the interpretation of Wiki policy here is making us unnecessarily, unprofessionally delicate in this matter, when other sources, of a caliber Wikipedia strives to match, interpret this point of journalistic ethics quite different from most of the editors on this talkpage. Ford MF (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think there's clearly room for interpretation as to how WP:BLP applies to any given situation. While I agree with you on this article, I don't think it's helpful to pretend that it's 100% clearcut. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually thanks for pointing this out. I do think this is a matter on which reasonable people can easily disagree, and I think the argument here has polarized people into "for" and "against" camps when their actual positions are probably a bit hazier (mine certainly is). Ford MF (talk) 05:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if it were permitted by Wikipedia policy, which would be silly, of course it would still be absolutely vile. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I see. But something about that policy stuck out more than the rest. "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced." Now, is saying that name deleted BLP concerns is "a fourteen-year-old Quebecois male high school student" not more descriptive than using his name, or am I reading the policy wrong? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 03:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to assume that at any given time there are more 14-year-old Quebecois high school students than there are people with a given name. To quibble over whether it would be okay to include his surname alone would be beneath us. After reading the arguments for inclusion spanning a period of some years now, one thing is plain to me: the only conceivable reason to use the name is to cause further harm. If you think it would be better to describe him only as "an adolescent boy", I would support that. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 03:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

For that matter, why even identify his gender? Ford MF (talk) 04:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on what seems to be the main argument against inclusion at this point why even have the article on here at all? Are we not just propagating vile mudslinging by continuing to acknowledge the very existence of this video? Furthermore, are you arguing that every single one of the myriad news sources linked here are being "vile" and are engaged in immoral behavior, and Wikipedia should hold itself up as the sainted arbiter of what constitutes good journalism? Hell, as I already mentioned, the guy himself apparently doesn't care if his name is released into the public discourse if he actually launched a public, full-scale lawsuit against those who released the video onto the internet (an action which in of itself I think warrants his name being mentioned). Why is Wikipedia to be essentially the only source in the entire world which censors itself on this matter? It's ridiculous. - Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, news magazine, TV program, etc. We're not a news source per se at all. We're an Encyclopedia.

An encyclopedia that's being stretched, and the definition of encyclopedia stretched (and folded and spindled and mutilated, some) by the scope of what it's become, but an encyclopedia nonetheless.

We specifically aren't some things (like a gossip rag, primary source, place for outside fights to happen).

We could have a different policy. But this is the policy that the Founder, staff, foundation, arbcom, admins, and editors have developed and enforce. That policy is that we, as an encyclopedia project, do not report every item of information in the world where an otherwise not well known person's identity is involved. Despite whether other news / gossip / discussion sources may put out there. "But they are doing it!" does not change the ethical or practical reasons behind our policy - we wish to be something other than what all those other sites are, intentionally, because we have completely different goals.

Because of what we've become, a lot of people mistake Wikipedia as somewhere that should eventually approach the sum total of all human knowledge that anyone thinks is of general interest. As a matter of policy, we have stated that we want to be somewhat more selective than that. Someone else can provide details that we chose not to include. We're not pretending that Google plus myriad other sites don't render the practical effects of this somewhat moot. But we're doing it because that's not what we want to be.

None of our content or user behavior policies is without its opponents or challengers. But those policies and goals stand. We're not a completely open site for all those other purposes. We're an encyclopedia, and we're slightly picky about content, though not much. One thing we are picky on, is biographical info, particularly about poorly notable people who want to stay private.

There are a billion other topics out there. Focusing on this one to the detrement of all the other things Wikipedia can do and everyone agrees should do seems somewhat silly. The appropriate place for this is to get engaged in Wikipedia policymaking, on the Talk page for WP:BLP, and on the Village Pump discussion and so forth. But that's the policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding the name provides no useful value to wikipedia. Some people are opposed to adding the name. Surely it is common sense what the best outcome is here? Those who know the name and seek clarification already get this article, so there is surely no need to waste editing time arguing. Plus, Jimbo Wales has spoken. --90.208.17.139 (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just gotta say... As someone who references Wikipedia many times daily, though doesn't generally contribute to it... My perspective is that this is a childish debate. I'm not sure what the point of leaving his name out is. It's in the papers. It was in the lawsuit. It was in SOUTHPARK. There is a widespread, PUBLIC record of this kid's name. It's not a secret, there is no publication ban, and the mainstream media use it. The idea that Wikipedia is somehow rising to a 'higher standard' is arrogant, and risks turning this from an encyclopaedia into an ivory tower. You can't sensationalize something that has been viewed 900 million+ times, and was reported upon worldwide. But you can make an encyclopaedia appear childish and censorious. Your choice. 70.48.106.213 (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion. But the policy stands. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The policy, which I've just read, is a good one. But... Though you posted the link to it... It doesn't appear, at first blush, to say what you imply. First (Presumption of privacy) talks about Wikipedia not being the "primary vehicle" for spreading information. Certainly with such a well publicized issue as this is, that is not the case. It suggests that things should be well sourced, neutral, and on topic. The boy's name doesn't violate any of those precepts. Next one (People notable for one event) seems to actually be talking about having an entry at all, and doesn't have anything to do with their name. If indeed you believe that this policy applies, then surely you must favour deleting the Star Wars kid article altogether? I don't honestly see how you can, in this case, seperate the person from the event... But regardless, this policy doesn't seem to have anything to do with his name, merely the existance of the article itself. Third point (Privacy of Names) specifically states "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed"... None of which applies in this case. The name is extremely widely disseminated, and it has not been intentionally concealed by any mainstream sources. I'm curious to understand your application of the policies you cite. 70.48.106.213 (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Formal notice

WP:BLP applies to ALL pages, including talk pages. Posting the real name on this talk page is almost as bad as putting it in the article - accordingly I have redacted all mentions of the name from the talk page. Exxolon (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that there isn't a widespread agreement that the name is a BLP issue. -- Ned Scott 02:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ned, iirc noindex does not currently operate in article space rather its used for project or user space. Regardless, this isn't about not indexing the page, this is about BLP being very clear that the name should not be used unless a consensus exists to do so - not the other way around. Shell ^babelfish 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about just the talk page.. -- Ned Scott 05:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Exxolon. It is worth mentioning that this talk page is more popular on the web than the next two sites mentioning his name combined. +sj + 05:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

i think it's inappropriate to censor his name from this talk page. we are trying to build consensus about whether to include his name in the article; however, the discussion should not be censored before a consensus has been reached. if it is decided that his name is redacted from the article, i still don't believe his name should be censored from the talk page - unless a consensus is reached on that too. this is supposed to be a collaboration. Theserialcomma (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean, especially your last sentence -- is the spelling of his name relevant to this discussion? The point of avoiding mentioning his name is to keep it from being associated with the star-wars-kid phenomenon on this high-profile public site. That applies to the talk page almost as much as to the article itself. +sj +

What his name actually is (including its spelling) is most certainly germane to the discussion, as it allows someone to Google it. The core argument of many of those who argue to include is that the name is already widely known and disseminated by highly reliable sources; without knowing what to look for, how could anyone verify that? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So your argument now is "if I can't get it in the article after repeated attempts, I'll simply make sure it gets spread over Google from the talk page to make my argument stronger"? You've now reverted two editors who removed your use of the name and in one case, did a simple revert that included deleting their comments. Until (and if) you build a consensus to include the name, then you can use it wherever you want - until then, BLP applies just as much here as it does in the article. Shell ^babelfish 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've redacted the last mention of the name on the page. WP:BLP is a 'brightline' policy - it absolutely applies under all circumstances and on all pages. While editing other's comments is normally taboo, WP:BLP trumps that convention. Understand I have no agenda here apart from following WP:BLP - I have no personal interest in this issue or any personal animosity towards any other editor here. Exxolon (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification - as long as his real name is left out of the article due to the WP:BLP policy the absolute same principle applies on the talk page. Exxolon (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Exxolon, please stop removing it form the talk page. The logic behind not including his name for BLP reasons is largely because of search results, which is not a major issue now that we have NOINDEX. Howcheng mentions that Yahoo seems to be having a problem, so we'll have to ask the devs or someone about that, but even then the impact here is minimal, and only for a short period of time. Combine that with the fact that we don't yet have a consensus on if it's a BLP issue or not, then no, I don't think it's appropriate to remove the name from the talk page. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No Ned, that's not the only reason. The BLP policy applies to more than just articles and clearly says that until consensus exists that this is not a BLP problem, the name should not be used anywhere. The fact that the editor pushing to include the name is the one using it isn't lost on anyone either. Shell ^babelfish 15:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Shell has clearly stated my position - until a consensus is reached that the real name is not a BLP violation it has to remain off all our pages. Exxolon (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"'cause I say so" isn't a convincing argument. I've read the same WP:BLP policy you have, an so have several others, and we don't agree with you. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's NOT what I'm doing, I'll try and clarify. 1 - We currently do not include the name on the article page due to WP:BLP concerns. 2 - There is currently a debate going on here on this talk page as to whether that decision is correct, or whether a consensus can be reached that it's not/no longer a WP:BLP concern and the name can be included in the article - this is perfectly acceptable and what talk pages are for. 3 - If we do not currently include the name in the article due to WP:BLP concerns then by extension that decision also applies to this talk page as WP:BLP applies across all pages irrespectively. 4 - Given those factors it's not appropiate to introduce the real name in the article OR on the talk page before consensus is reached that including the name is no longer a WP:BLP concern. It's entirely possible to have the debate without including his real name on the talk page at all. Exxolon (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Point of clarification: article talk pages aren't indexed by Google. See [78]. They are, however, indexed by Yahoo. howcheng {chat} 16:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Then someone needs to fire off a message to yahoo to fix their crawlers. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Fighting to include the name on the talk page seems to be making a WP:POINT. Here we certainly don't need his name; I should hope editors who want to know it have the technical skills to look it up. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 10:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, removing his name from the Talk Page is most definitely making a point. -MarkKB (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove it to make a point, I removed it due to BLP concerns. See my post above for the rationale. Exxolon (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

? The closest WP:BLP comes to saying that is in reference to attempting to thwart the deletion of pages. -MarkKB (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify my position, I do understand that it's a consensus issue and we should avoid The Guy's name as much as possible until such is met, I just don't understand why you have to drag WP:BLP into the talk pages to justify it, or declare the one side's view as making a point when both sides are just about as pointy as each other. -MarkKB (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason I invoked BLP is because under normal circumstances it's not permissible to edit other people's talk page edits. BLP concerns are one of the few allowable reasons. Exxolon (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In what way does it disrupt Wikipedia? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In what way does mentioning it disrupt Wikipedia? 189.104.52.119 (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a BLP concern of mentioning it on the talk page. There is no NPOV concern of not mentioning it on the talk page. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the things I heard about BLP is that the inclusion of the name can be more favorable if the subject describes his opinions and experiences. The Star Ward Kid comments about the video and the various spoofs in this article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060407.wxstarwars07/BNStory/National/home

Because he himself has allowed his opinions to be published in newspapers (even though the video initially caused distress and harm), we should attribute the opinions to his name, and therefore we should include his name. If the subject never directly spoke to the media and/or described his experiences, we would definately not mention his name. See http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060407.wxstarwars07/BNStory/National/home WhisperToMe (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• By the way, I got this idea from the debate at Talk:Debito_Arudou#Is_it_really_necessary_to_name_his_daughters.3F_.28Part_2.29 - I and another poster disagreed about whether Debito Arudou's daughters, mentioned as figures in Arudou's movement, should be mentioned. I wanted to include the names while another poster (and a few others) did not. On IRC I flagged down a third poster. He, DragonflySixtyseven, said that since the daughters were minors AND they never spoke to the media about the incident (describing what it was like, how they felt), they should not be named. However Arudou's now-ex wife, Ayako Sugawara, described her experiences. Therefore the article names her. I argue that Star Wars Kid is in a similar scenario with Sugawara because he, since the incident, willingly spoke to the media about the meme and its effects.WhisperToMe (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • EDIT: I realized that much of the text is paraphrased and quoted from some court proceedings (but quoted from a reliable secondary source), so I will see if I can find entire interviews and/or recollections featuring Star Wars Kid. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • EDIT 2: Here's more: http://seattlepi.com/movies/137246_starwarskid30.html -- '"I want my life back," he said in an e-mail interview with the National Post newspaper, a Canadian daily.' -- I'm still now sure what to think of this one, so I'll look for more WhisperToMe (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • EDIT 3: I wonder if this one counts as Star Wars Kid willingly spoke about the incident, although this was to a blogger and not to a media source: "Lawyers for the three schoolmates had suffered a setback after they were not allowed to introduce as evidence a transcript of a phone conversation the victim had with a blogger, Jishnu Mukerji. The blogger had posted a transcript of the exchange on the Internet.

Conducted a month after the video and parodies of it began circulating, the conversation has the victim calling the spoofs "interesting" but not expressing much distress."

• • EDIT 4: Okay, this clarifies things: http://www.radaronline.com/from-the-magazine/2007/02/prisonersofyoutube.php - "Aside from a few brief statements by e-mail in 2003, he has never spoken with reporters." - So only brief e-mail statements are of the subject directly speaking to reporters. This Radar Online article was from 2007. It seems like the e-mail statements are not that much. Unless Star Wars Kid speaks about this in more detail to reporters in a subsequent article, then we shouldn't reveal his name. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Final edit: Now that I understand that the subject did not have any substantial interviews with the media (we only have court cases and a small e-mail snippet), we should not mention his name as per BLP. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed yet another mention of the real name in WhisperToMe's edits - ironic since the edits he/she made are to a section formally notifying editors the inappropiateness of including the real name on the talk page! Exxolon (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Exxolon, it was a mistake. It isn't ironic. (See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Irony for the definition of Irony) WhisperToMe (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Violation on article!

User:Arpitt added the name to the article - this is not acceptable at this time, accordingly I have reverted this. Exxolon (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I disagree with your stance on name inclusion, I do agree with your reversion of the main article. Until we reach a consensus here, it is inappropriate to add it to either page. Turlo Lomon (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well done, Exxolon - I confess that I failed to notice this addition because of the fashion in which User:Arpitt disguised his activities, making these two edits immediately after the one that added the name: [79], [80]. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:AzureFury reverted User:SteveMargetts addition of the real name. I've invited Steve to join the discussion. As he hadn't edited in a few months he probably wasn't aware of this discussion. Exxolon (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Alright, first off; I do have an account, but I didn't sign in (plus I cannot be bothered). Secondly, whilst doing some OR (that I will not put in the article, don't worry), I looked up the guys real name (that I will not mention, don't worry) w/ various search engines. Simply based on a quick summing up of article hits, video hits, views and search strings (that specifically point out the guys name), I reached a number in the tens of millions very quickly and without any real effort. A further look bumped the number into the first hundred. Granted, my OR is in no way whatsoever scientific, but for a person to state "well uh the dude is like a private person so.., you know", is to not really be in step with the actual, physical, discernible, real, tangible, corporeal world out there. Just to be crisp and articulate; every single one that has done an edit on this talk page knows the guys name (I will still not mention it, don't worry). That's how "private" it is. It's one thing to be anal about rules and regulation, it's another thing to be in denial. Don't worry, the rules are the rules and I will stick to them. I am the first to admit there has to be rules to govern a communal effort, but when the rules do not apply to the real world anymore, it's not the world that's at fault. (Wow, someone ought to write that last sentence down..! Sometimes I do come up with the best stuff, don't I?) 82.181.201.82 (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If you came across a broken vending machine that had clearly been stolen from by dozens of people, would you steal from it too? If you don't do it, someone else will, so why not you? Morality is not determined by the masses. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What? What's wrong with stealing from broken vending machines? I say take advantage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.119.33 (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear AzureFury, I understand that this is a sensitive issue for you. However, your analogy -- while informative and picturesque -- is not really analogous w/ the situation, now is it? Am I to understand that theft is equivalent to knowledge? If so, I must say, I don't feel like a criminal just because I know the name of the person in question (which I will not mention, don't worry). Unfortunately, I cannot erase it from my mind, either. Oh, by the by; dear AzureFury, morality is determined by the masses. Ethics, on the other hand, is not. Stoning, "honor killings" or Pharaonic Circumcision, anyone? 82.181.201.82 (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Semantics. I'm not calling knowing his name theft. I consider theft a bad thing. It is generally agreed (even by the sources) that publication of the kid's name is a bad thing. The point is, if you can do a bad thing without consequence, that everyone else has done, do you do it? You call this a sensitive issue for me, it's not. I'm prepared to accept his name in the article if consensus tilts that way, as a defense against censorship. I just don't see that as more important here. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that it's not generally considered a bad thing to publish his name. Indeed I've only ever seen one article take that position, the vast majority had no problem whatsoever with it. Even here you can see that there is no consensus either way. The only reason his name is currently omitted is because somebody was bold, removed it, and then requested consensus in order to add it back, which is never going to happen cause the opinions (here at least, not in the news articles) are evenly divided. It’s very difficult to change things here since it’s very easy to find 10 people that hold any part particular view and just as easy to find another 10 that hold an opposing view so most discussions end up stalling and are won by whoever persists in the end. The actual merits of arguments, unfortunately, matter very little since people tend to have a pre-determined view that they attempt to justify logically, and if their arguments are proven wrong then they simply make new ones and so on and so forth, never admitting defeat. So basically, as I said before, what actually matters is the ability to keep pushing your view (whatever that might be) after everyone else got tired of the discussion and gave up.201.50.3.249 (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Talking about how he was victimized because of the release of his name is an implication that releasing his name was bad. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any proof that he was victimized because his name was released? --Itub (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"The lawsuit stated, in part, that he "had to endure, and still endures today, harassment and derision from his high-school mates and the public at large" and 'will be under psychiatric care for an indefinite amount of time.'" The public at large could not harass him if they didn't know his name. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 10:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a questionable assumption. They could have just recognized his face. --Itub (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Very true, actors that are not front line hollywood stars get recognized on the streets all the time, though many people don't know or can't remember their names. Ãlso even if your assumprion is correct, which is very questinable, it would still not show how, wikipedia, by publishing his name 5 years later, after the whole world and their grandmas know who he is, would be somehow worsening his situation, the worst you cold argue is that whoemver published his name first, 5 years ago, was in error (which is why our BLP policy talks of not outing people). And no, this is not one of those situations where repeating the action constitutes repeating the offence (if it was one) as with every news story the only publication that matters is the first, because after that the information is public. By witholding his name Wikipedia is not taking some imaginary moral highground, it is simply looking silly. 189.104.52.119 (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." - BLP. Posting his name here prolongs the victimization.

You say, "this is not one of those situations where repeating the action constitutes repeating the offence (if it was one) as with every news story the only publication that matters is the first..." It is that kind of thinking that led the video to be republished repeatedly. If his privacy had been respected by everyone who viewed the video upon its release by the kid's peers, then this would not have been nearly as huge a phenomenon as it was. People who redistributed the video share the guilt. It is the same with his name.

I think it's questionable as to whether people would recognize him from the video, especially as he got older. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 11:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong in any way whatsoever, I absolutely love the SWK. Hey, we've all done that, admit it. The reason he's so endearing is not because his moves aren't Nureyevesque, but simply because ours aren't, either. He's us, to such an extent that we can relate. Hail. (Oh, the article doesn't really need his name. Not really.) 82.181.201.82 (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars Kid parody on Arrested Development

Does anybody remember that chapter in which George Michael Bluth records himself doing the same jedi moves? it was very brief; it should be included in the Trivia section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifibo (talk • contribs) 21:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This is part is pointless

"In the music video Pork and Beans, which features many Internet viral video stars, Star Wars Kid does not appear but another Internet celebrity "Afro Ninja" twirls a staff in a similar fashion."

Someone should edit that OUT of this page. Afro Ninja is a completely different meme!

Useful comment. We'll take that under consideration. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No Name?

It's a bit odd that his name isn't mentioned. There can't be a person that he knows who doesn't know him as 'Star Wars Kid'. I doubt mentioning it on Wikipedia would have any effect. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see the entire archive of this talk page for discussion on this issue. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hah! Searching for his name Google actually lists the wikipedia entry first. So much for not putting his name in the article. 171.71.36.248 (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that his name is prominently mentioned in the references used to source the article, so absolutely nothing is gained by excluding it. Oh well, I guess it makes people feel good to think they're helping him in some small way so I can't really fault them for their motives. Still, the only way Wikipedia could actually actually make a difference in his "continued victimization" or whatever is to delete the article entirely. That should be the real debate in my opinion. Dhris (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I just imagine that nobody in his daily life actually refers to him by his name anyway. They probably call him Star Wars Kid. I was thinking of him maybe working at Halfords and the boss shouting 'oi, Star Wars Kid! Bring over one of those Raleigh 270s"' and 'Use the force'!. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus vs. Majority

I've changed the language in one of the boxes on this page from "consensus" to "majority", as that is what the talk page archive reflects. I asked a while ago for a pointer to the earlier, broader discussion where consensus was reached, and have yet to see it. I think if we're going to indicate a consensus was reached, and it isn't in plain sight here, there's a burden to at least show how it was arrived at. Skyraider (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be allowed to know his name?

Shoudln't we say this kids name, i know what it is. Its has been said on the news etc. I don't see what's the probelm with putting it here. I read his name in a reader's digest about cyber bullying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.86.65 (talk) 06:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read the talk page archive; much has been said about this issue. One of the salient factors is that "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." — TKD::{talk} 08:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please tell us his name? — Anonymous

No. You can search on Google if you really want to know. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So whats the plan? Never mention his name again and hope everybody in the entire world forgets it? Real encyclopedic of you fellas, good thinking. Why bother with an article at all if you can't even include the basic facts out of some Orwellian paranoia that people can't handle it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.60.94 (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Please review the archives before taking this further. This has all been discussed before. In this case, ethics and respect for what little privacy this guy has left takes priority (if this hapened to me, I wouldn't want my name stuck up all over the net).122.106.160.244 (talk) 06:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Once he's 18...

Would we be allowed to post his name once he turns 18 and is no longer a minor? 70.179.52.204 (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

He is already older than 18.122.106.160.244 (talk) 06:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Needs small edit

{{Editsemiprotected}}

The last external link (the one to the Wookieepedia article) needs to be removed, as Wookieepedia recently deleted the article. See this discussion for details. 99.72.38.136 (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Done GrooveDog (oh hai.) 20:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)