|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Streisand effect article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Threads with no replies in 21 days may be automatically moved.|
By Businesses - not newspaper?
I added in a section on the recent Techdirt, Above the law and ABAjournal commentary on a subpeona issued by an American law firm against its anonymous former employees. The firm "supercharged" the negative reviews by making negative comments about the negative commentors. I think this is a reasonably notable addition, and I think that removing edits because they are "merely" additive borders on censorship itself. This does not seem to be an example of WP:Notnewspaper to me. I would appreciate comments from the group. (My writing can be tightened up a bit - it always can!) Thank you in advance for your comments. Saltwolf (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- I added in a sentence and citation to a legal commentator's statement that this lawsuit may create a "Layfield and Barrett" effect regarding the specific chilling of speech on job review posting boards. I think this is a very notable development and would like to see it stick on the page. Thanks much. Saltwolf (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Elton John and David Furnish
Re this edit: the revert has nothing to do with legal reasons. Neither the National Post nor the Sunday Mail says "this is an example of the Streisand effect" so this is an example of WP:OR, which says "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Past consensus on this article is not to introduce new examples unless the source uses the phrase "Streisand effect" by name. As for the identities of the people in the saga of PJS v News Group Newspapers, so far only the National Enquirer has printed the full story and given the names of the people (allegedly) involved in promoting the use of olive oil. All of the other sources are quoting what the NE said. As for the specific link given in the citation with the URL http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/why-the-english-media-could-go-to-jail-for-reporting-on-the-olive-oil-trysts-of-elton-johns-husband , it looks like this has gone for a walk from the National Post website due to some assiduous behaviour somewhere along the line. This isn't as easy to cite as it first looks.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all reference to the "unnamed couple" and their incident. The edit in question just seemed to be about identifying EJ and DF, but as the cited article says, "As British sources have noted, the consensual proclivities of David Furnish are generally of little interest to the mainstream British public." The context is about British superinjunctions (see previous paragraph and first sentence of subject paragraph "A similar situation involving super-injunctions in England and Wales have occurred, involving Jeremy Clarkson"), but the article points out it is not a superinjunction but just an injunction. I don't see this incident as a good example of the SE. EJ & DF were just pursuing their privacy under British law; they were not trying to stomp on some lowly coastal photographer or innocent 8th grader. Glrx (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
TED + Graham Hancock + Rupert Sheldrake
Originally I've made an addition as follows:
In January 2013, at TEDx conference in London Whitechapel Graham Hancock gave the talk "The War on Consciousness" and Rupert Sheldrake gave the talk "The Science Delusion". The scientific board released a statement  after which the content of the talks were removed from the website. The discussion on the website generated more than 2000 comments, triggered a lot of interest and many unofficial copies were posted online. As of December 2016 the only other "banned TED talk" is Nick Hanauer talk "Rich People Don't Create Jobs".
These are concrete examples, with references, linking to specific paragraphs of people involved.
Response: "We don't need more examples, sources uncertain, SE not mentioned"
TED is a notable example, YouTube copies are getting more than 100K views each and search phrase "banned TED talk" works as a seal of approval - cannot ask for better recommendation.
What is "SE" in wiki slang? Special Edition?
- "SE" in this case is shorthand for "Streisand Effect". In other words, the person who removed it is arguing the sources themselves don't call it as such. From my own POV, not only do we not need more examples, but even if we did treat it as a SE, it is a poor example of such. Tedx did not remove it from their YouTube channel out of a desire to prevent it from being seen, but because they initially believed the piece was factually inaccurate. Additionally, the fact that Tedx not only posted the video in a blog explaining the removal, with their reasons, posted the rebuttal from Sheldrake and updated their post in response to same makes it patently obvious that their aim was not to censor this video or prevent it from being seen. This is not a Streisand Effect. Merely an action that generated considerable discussion. Resolute 22:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I removed the example agree completely with Resolute.
- My User talk:Glrx#Streisand Effect comments:
- SE should not have a comprehensive list of every happening that could be a SE. The article needs just a few, clear, interesting examples to illustrate the effect. If every editor added their favorite example, the article would be bloated.
- Discussion on the talk page has settled on a requirement that competent secondary sources call the episode a SE by name. It is not enough for WP editors to look at what happened and conclude it is an example of SE. We want a source to make the determination. See WP:OR.
- The SE also has a suppression by threat or force element. Somebody is trying to suppress a work, but the heavy handedness of the suppression backfires. In the example reverted, the publisher decided to retract the stories because they had problems/did not meet required publication standards. That's not suppression; that is recalling an article that should not have been published in the first place. Furthermore, the publisher made the articles available in another area so the retraction could be discussed. That's not Streisand suing a well meaning photographer to get him to take a photo off a website. It's not some schoolboard trying get an 8 year old girl to stop reporting on the quality of the cafeteria's food. It's the publisher deciding to stop publishing a particular work that the publisher no longer considers appropriate.
- Glrx (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed, this doesn't look like a good example, and the sourcing given doesn't say that it is the Streisand effect. The benchmark is reliable secondary sources noting the effect, and even then the article does not need an exhaustive list of every time the phrase "Streisand effect" was used.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)