Talk:Violet Blue/Archive 2

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


Untitled

I have done the research and could prove it by posting her birth certificate which is public as well as her entire social. The reality is she is NOT the hotty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.211.54.243 (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ben is there a way to get ahold of you -- can you post your email or twitter -- have info to help you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.211.54.243 (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The birth year recently added

Violet Blue is currently complaining on Twitter that the birth year being attributed to her in the article is erroneous. She's asking about "formal requests" for removal. I would suggest keeping it out, lest the Biographies of Living Persons policy bring its wrath upon this article... User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 22:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It will go her way unless a source of the Highest Credibility speaks otherwise. Does such a source exist? If not, there's no sense in including it here.Yeago (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Correction: These documents exist in User:BenBurch's userspace. It is a rather untraditional source, however, it may pass.Yeago (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I did not understand the full nature and scope of this dispute when I stepped into it. I don't mean to take any side in an argument I don't totally understand, and I'm going to refrain from editing the article further, purely for the sake of my own sanity. :-) User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 04:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
A wise policy. The 1970 birthdate is what was in both police reports she tried to use in her attempt to silence me, and in my opinion would have derived from her CA driver's license in both cases as the officer would have used that as a source. It is the date reported for her birthdate from every public records search firm I have consulted, moreover it is the date of the record of her birth certificate which was issued in Alameda County in the name of Wendi S Sullivan. All of which is probably "original research" as we use the term here, but all true nonetheless. However, there is now a major published source of her birth name, but still, lets leave it out. She wants people to believe that she was born Violet Blue and is not almost 40, so I have no problem with her maintaining that fiction. --BenBurch (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Again the birth year? If you guys want to put it in, I'll stop objecting, but it will cause another war. Serves no purpose other than to rub it in that she's old. --BenBurch (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I just removed the birth date per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_personal_information. Typically, where there are concerns on WP about birthdates as private info, the month and date are removed and the year left up rather than the other way around. In this case, it looks like the year is a contentious issue and only available from private sources. Hence, there should be no birthdate or year given in this article, unless it comes from a public, verifiable source. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

first use of Violet Blue name

Do any of you know what (specific) source has the first use of the name "Violet Blue?" Adding information about such would greatly help me and other wikipedia readers comprehend the legal contention over the name. TIA Sp0 (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure which legal contention you are referring to. Her case whit Ada Jonson has been settled with both sides happy with the result. So there is not contention there. What question exactly are you asking. I can probably find your answer for you if you can clarify.Wikiwikimoore (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC).

What is the name of the specific source (ie, name, issue and date), such as a magazine, of where Violet blue is first used by the person in this article? While there might not be a legal contention now, there was a legal contention before; therefore, this issue deals with the history now or before.
Well first off it is her name and not a professional name but the first time it is mentioned in media in the credits of this 1996 show video which is available on VHS and DVD (http://www.srl.org/phoenix_show.html). Her first book was The Ultimate Guide to Fellatio, Cleis Press, 2002, ISBN 1573441511, but prior to that she has done professional writing for websites the unfortunately no longer exists. So I would say that your answer is 1996. If what you care about is her professional carer. Wikiwikimoore (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ben Burch

Seriously, no mention of Ben Burch in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.215.239.71 (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I could be convinced otherwise, but the incident doesn't strike me as of encyclopedic relevance. Also it's the sort of event that Wikipedia tends to handle poorly, so I'm inclined to say putting it in the article would do more harm than good - to everyone. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't really see any precedent for this type of thinking. The solution to Wikipedia 'handling it poorly' is to handle it not-poorly, not skirt the issue simply because its close to home.Yeago (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The precedent is essentially "do no harm", and err in that direction. I don't mean this as favoring either party in the dispute. But since Wikipedia coverage can do a lot of harm, not the least by causing an incident to fester, I'd say the bar for inclusion for stuff like this should be set very very high. --- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
That may have applied a year ago when emotions were running hot. Not now. A brief sentence or two is not 'doing harm', especially when executed by people who are not directly related to the matter.Yeago (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I have no objections. Only real issue is that all the source documents are public documents and primary documents are a problem. She's had a year now to show me her original birth certificate and get a full apology, and she has not produced it. I believe I know why that might be... --BenBurch (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, if Ben Burch doesn't object, I won't further argue the point here, though I still think Wikipedia cannot in general handle such sensitive topics well. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I will note that the incident was covered by the local alt-weekly, SF Weekly, here: [1]. I also note, however, that SF Weekly has a reputation for having its own axes to grind, including against Violet Blue, so anybody using that article as a source needs to be careful to filter out any kind of editorial slant that article might add to its reporting. Also, having User:BenBurch add or significantly edit that material brings up significant WP:COI issues. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Slang

Should slang terms. (Such as "Blogosphere") be removed from this article? If someone would be kind to do it it'd be nice, I'd do it but i am a horrible writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.88.161.118 (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say "blogosphere" is not slang, but part of the language. One of the many neologisms brought about by the rapid growth of internet culture. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Bisexuality?

Is Violet Blue bisexual? I have read some of her writings and it seems like she is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.189.46 (talk) 04:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't everybody these days? But seriously, unless some claim of her identifying as "bisexual" can be verifiably sourced, then it shouldn't go in the article, infobox, or categories. Being the author of some creative work that can be interpreted as homoerotic doesn't rise to that level. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
In the future, please try to be less obviously a cohort of ms. blue.Yeago (talk) 06:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me? Do you mind explaining that accusation? Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to it's unfortunate history, this page looks like one of the few biography pages that is actually conforming to WP:BLP. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
To a weird fault. I notice a pattern in mini-web starlets such as Blue, Xeni Jardin, etc, in how they keep a close grip with their Wikipedia articles in order to guise very common information that they regard, somehow, personal. I'm not sure I agree that WP:BLP ought to be employed in the service of this vanity, but it is what it is. Its funny, because once someone attains a certain velocity in the realm of notoriety (read: more famous than their niche neighborhood fan-dom), the gloves come off with regard to their article and nothing is spared from inclusion. Maybe it is that with the minis, the pecking of friends (and in this case, the serving of a legal warrant) simply skews the regular volunteer effort.Yeago (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty horrified by the stuff I find in biographical articles. It shouldn't be up to web-savvy celebs to put encyclopedia right. And most of these people aren't famous in the Hollywood sense, not "mini-web starlets", just people whose name is known for doing something. They shouldn't be subjected to the celebrity circus. --Simon Speed (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think she falls into the category of articles centered around people who did one thing once.Yeago (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"I am unabashedly bisexual..." - Violet Blue [2]Yeago (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

So long as it is not given undue weight, this fact should be included in the article. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Name / Birthdate

Any info on her name prior to the official change and trademarking of Violet Blue? Also birthdate? 132.228.195.207 (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The information is out there, but I will not repeat it here. --BenBurch (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I estimate, Violet Blue has not volunteered her name as Wendi Sullivan, regardless of whether that name appears on widely available legal documents. She has also not volunteered the year of her birth, so far as I can tell. She's volunteered plenty of other things that people hovering around this article remove in the interest of privacy. I understand the concern is genuine, that we respect people's desires for privacy where and when they arbitrarily ask, whether their reasons relate to hiding from figures of the past or from simple vanity. But I really must protest the wasted energies that go into protecting this article from information which Blue has shouted from the rooftops, so to speak.Yeago (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

1) There is no source for Violet Blue's birth year that begins to meet the standards of WP:VERIFY. 2) In the absence of a birth year, how is her birthday a notable piece of info? 3) Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_personal_information seems pretty clear on this – birthdates raise greater privacy concerns than birth year. If birth year is not verifiable and privacy concerns have been raised, I think its pretty clear that no part of the birth date should be given. If Violet Blue's birth year or age is given by a source that rises to WP:VERIFY, then my position on this would be different. 4) This article has a contentious history where WP:BLP and WP:COI issues are a concern, both from her detractors and supporters. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry sir: WRONG. Her blog does meet those standards. How is not notable? What are you using as a basis for this opinion? Stop bringing up the Privacy of personal information! She has volunteered this information on her Public and Notable blog!Yeago (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes her blog is meets the criteria of WP:VERIFY, but show me where on her blog she gives her age or birth year. And you have yet to explain how her birthday in absence of a full date is information that is notable. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not attempting to add her birth year. The burden isn't on me in this matter, sir! YOU tell me where the precedent is in situations like this to leave the ENTIRE date out when a birth year is unknown or not supplied and I will fall in step! Until then, expect reverts.Yeago (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I've cite this already: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_personal_information. Please read it. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I did. It says absolutely nothing about notability in this case. I also poked around in a wiki discussion forum on the category: birth year missing and was not able to find a situation which spoke to your idea about notability. The plain stupid truth of the matter is that this 'non-notable' issue is entirely something you cooked up without any regard to anything anywhere on Wikipedia. I ask you again, and for the last time: can you please provide a precedent for your apparently arbitrary decision that a fractional birthdate is not-notable?Yeago (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Precisely so. It was about as well-researched as your contributions to the discussion above (bisexuality). Thankfully google is wise and we can go beyond mere suggestion. In the future, I wish you'd stop confusing the Heart and Soul of BLP for skirmishes over truly trivial data.Yeago (talk) 09:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
This is turning a little too personal. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think that giving just the birthday is encyclopedic, and I still fail to see your reasoning for inclusion. I'm going to RFC this and see what others think and I'll go with whatever the consensus is. In the meantime, I second what Simon Speed says about this getting too personal. I remind you, Yeago, that WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are the rules for interactions between editors and breaching those when other editors are trying to maintain calm does not reflect well on you. You have numerous warnings and outright blocks on your talk page over this issue on your talk page, and I urge you not to make civility an issue once again here. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. This is not a matter of incivility, this is a discussion about the interpretation of Wikipedia policy and this contributor happens to find your application without precedent and frankly confused. The BLP issues which you consistently bring up are meant to protect WP:BIO subjects from having information which is merely public record injected into this article. Blue's birth date and sexuality are not mere public record—they are freely available on her blog where she volunteered them. I am sorry you find my communication of this terse and uncivil, but I assure you it comes without any judgment on my part, outside of your misapplication of BLP.Yeago (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Birthday without birth year in info box?

The info box for this biography gives the birthday, sans birth year, for Violet Blue. There is a disagreement over whether this information is encyclopedic and whether its appropriate under WP:BLP.

My position: As of this writing, there is no verifiable source for VB's year of birth, and giving her year of birth has been previously contested, as the last time it was included it was taken from court documentation rather than a public source. The date of her birthday was given on her blog, which does meet the criterion for WP:VERIFY for purposes of this article. On the other hand, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_personal_information indicates that, if anything, birth date is even more private information than birth year, and also, I don't see how simple birthday information is encyclopedic. (I leave it to Yeago to present his side of the argument.) Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I already have, above. Nobody is suggesting putting in the year of birth--I am not sure how we keep arriving at this conversational point. Also, day of birth does not fall under 'privacy of personal information' because, as the cited link suggest, this is something she has advertised on her blog. Its encyclopedic in the sense that it is minor data which is common to all biographies for the sake of completeness. You restate your position but leave out the very thing which would end the debate: one single example anywhere of a fractional birth-date being un-encyclopedic. An exhaustive search of Category:Date_of_birth_missing_(living_people) turns up nothing in favor of this. For the third of fourth time, can you please give some precedent?Yeago (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'm asking the same question, but in reverse. This is the first article I've seen where a birth date is given without a birth year. So where is the precedent for that? Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised that you guys cannot reach an agreement on this minor issue. The presumption of privacy is not valid given the self-publication; verification is met, although only just; so the remaining argument is whether the information is encyclopedic. On one side it is verified information that enhances the completeness of the article, and on the other hand it reads oddly without the year. I think adding information outweighs any stylistic issues, and so the birth date should remain. Kevin (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to go along with Kevin. I don't think the information adds much to the article, but if you want a precedent, Teruo Kakuta's stub of an article has a birthday but no year. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Equally valid from an encyclopedic POV with or without the date and with or without the year. I think she's the only one who really cares what day it is. She can maintain whatever fiction about her past that she likes for all I care. But I am not going to have good-faith editors abused over this pitiful article as I have been abused. Period. And I am NOT going to tolerate being accused of COI when I have none at all here other than wanting to see procedure followed and editors respected. I am owed an apology. Yeago is owed an apology. And this matter should be resolved by third parties. --BenBurch (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, from where I'm sitting, I think you two owe ME an apology big time for the baseless accusations you've made against me. But then again, demanding an apology is just another form of rudeness, so I'm not going to make that demand, nor am I going to dignify your demands, BenBurch. But if you want third-party intervention in a dispute over WP:CIVILITY issues, believe me, I welcome it. The saying about not throwing stones when you're in a glass house comes to mind.
As for COI, I said that in reference to anything concerning the Violet Blue vs Ben Burch case. The fact you would have as much COI as Violet Blue herself would on that issue is self-evident. If you've already taken a hands-off approach to that subject, then my apologies for implying you hadn't. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's give the third-parties a break, eh? 10k bytes of talk for 143 bytes of article space..... judicial economy!!Yeago (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
"I don't think the information adds much to the article" -- What do you mean? It adds 143 bytes. Yeago (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, you did it, you made me laugh when I was thinking really sour thoughts. Thanks. Seriously, though, I'm out of here for a while. I've had my say. --BenBurch (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the RFC tag was removed a bit soon – RFCs usually run for longer than 48 hours. Still, the consensus does seem to be that inclusion of her birthday is (minimally) encyclopedic and doesn't raise BLP issues, so I have no problem going along with that consensus. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you didn't mention her birth year at all!! Progress!!Yeago (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think, as a partial outsider here, that everyone ought to tone it down a little. Worrying more about whether one is being civil to other editors and less about whether they are being civil to oneself, might help. We are all cooperating to improve an article. --Simon Speed (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing how much time and effort certain folk have spent here trying to push for a date of birth to be published when from what I've read on this discussion page, there hasn't been any proof of her full DOB (someone said 'on her blog' but has given no url for others to verify). It's also with some surprise that I read the lengths certain people here have pushed back at the otherwise reasonable suggestion of privacy issues, both out of common decency and also those specifically mentioned in policy page Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_personal_information. Category:Date_of_birth_missing_(living_people) is full of articles that have incomplete DOB's yet I don't see the same individuals shouting from the roof-tops about the missing information being un-encyclopedic on the discussion pages on those articles (I checked quite a few). It's pretty clear a number of individuals, such as BenBurch and Yeago have a slanted agenda and don't appear to be making either edits nor discussion comments for the purpose of forwarding the value of Wikipedia but instead for some kind of personal vendetta against the subject of the entry.

With people arguing on both sides of publishing full DOB or not, and thus locked in a deadlock, I was actually wondering whether the subject of the entry had showed any preference given that there is a personal privacy issue at stake here. Upon Googling I found the following page on her blog: http://www.tinynibbles.com/blogarchives/2008/08/about-those-restraining-orders.html This page has her passport photo printed with her year of birth removed - which to me suggests that the subject doesn't want the year of her birth published. I also couldn't find any reference to the proposed year on her blog either. I was also interested to read the rest of this post in which the subject of this entry republished a correspondence from BenBurch in which he suggests that he will do what he can to tarnish her name and otherwise make a nusiance of himself with respect to this kind of information. I'm therefore curious as to why BenBurch is able to make any updates to this entry? If his only reason to spend time on this article is in the pursuance of the improvement of accuracy of Wikipedia perhaps his efforts would be best spent on another entry where there cannot be any possibility of a COI? --LuckyLuke 08:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DotBen (talkcontribs)

Apart from noting that Ben & Violet have issues and that these might lead to a COI, we should avoid personal criticisms and discuss only what is best for the article. There were BLP problems with this article and there are BLP problems with many many other articles. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Your exhaustive rant has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Burch hasn't edited the article. This is about a birth-date. So you wonder at the reason why it goes ON AND ON? Its because of people like you, who conflate the issue. But I will keep leading the sow back to the water: there is no BLP issue with regard to her birth date. NOBODY is suggesting putting in her year of birth. There is no deadlock because there is no precedent for leaving out the day and month when year is unavailable—None (like, zero).Yeago (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow, its actually worse than I thought. Actually reading your rant I came up with "Category:Date_of_birth_missing_(living_people) is full of articles that have incomplete DOB' yet I don't see....". Can you be bothered to read this discussion correctly? I am not shouting from any rooftop that the missing information is unencylopedic. You've mixed up everyone's arguments into a kind of illogical alphabet soup. I *know* that a missing birth-year is a non-issue and why am I not screaming from the rooftops at other articles? Because there is nobody there fighting tooth and nail to keep the partial information out! Those articles are fine! Nothing to scream about! You so proudly checked a bunch of other articles investigating this? Wow, I'm sorry. By the way how many did you check? Because that's the same number of reasons this discussion is over. Yeago (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no COI. The facts of the case are published, and that is all I wanted, all I promised to do, and its done. BTW, in my considered opinion, the passport was a way of trying to call me a liar while proving nothing. As any Transsexual (by way of example only) who has gone through a name change will tell you, they issue you a new passport when you change your name, so that document does not stand in stead of the original birth certificate mentioned in my user page. Should she provide me that, and if it shows that she was born Violet Blue, she gets a full and public apology from me. My opinion is that she cannot show me that document because in my opinion no such document in the name she currently uses exists, but prove me wrong, and the apology issues. I reserve the right to make NPOV edits to this article at any time, and to include any information that is encyclopedic in nature from a Reliable Source. --BenBurch (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
This is not a good place to discuss the Ben/Violet dispute. And also please note This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

In relation to the question above, I share the concerns raised by a couple of people that day and month of birth, on their own, aren't encyclopedic. It's useful if you want to work out the subject's star sign or make sure to deliver flowers on their birthday, but strictly speaking it doesn't really add anything. Year of birth, on its own, at least tells you the rough age of the subject and the generation, which is far more useful. That said, it doesn't do any significant harm, it isn't particularly controversial, the subject doesn't seem to have expressed a wish to hide it (as per the source), it is sufficiently sourced, and given the sort of content found in perfectly good BLPs, I'm not convinced that it is too trivial to keep. My only real concern is that having it may encourage passing editors to keep re-adding the year, which may be problematic given prior discussions. - Bilby (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I was an early proponent of this but article watchers will agree this becomes a chicken-and-egg situation where a missing birth date will prompt passer-byers in good faith (and ignorance of consensus) to add the birth date in entirety. So there's no real benefit. Anyway... this RFC has been posted for... how many hours now? Removing. pff, nevermind. Tired of being heckled.Yeago (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have proof of Violet's Real Name and birth year -- what would satisfy people?

I could put her birth cert up on Bit torrent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.211.54.243 (talk) 06:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

  • If you post non-public, personal information again, as you previously have, your account will be blocked and the edits will be suppressed. As just happened. Posting BLP subjects' Social Security Numbers is completely unacceptable. Please don't do that again - Alison 06:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
IP poster - I already have all that information. She's really not worth the effort. If you are determined to get sued by her, post it to scribd. --BenBurch (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP makes it clear that information like that can ONLY be posted if secondary sources report on it, or if the author reveals it herself in her own primary sources. Don't go to the bureau of vital statistics, etc. to get proof of this stuff. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Update?

Ms. Blue has noticed that her own Wikipedia page has become outdated, as well as still contains some information she'd rather it not have. These tweets from her verified account state such: [3] and [4] This tweet [5] very sensibly suggests sources for updated information, curated by the woman herself. As I'm a novice Wikipedian, I'd try to help but I don't know all the coding and such that goes into citing all sources or perfectly proper article structure. I'm glad to see that her page is on several lists to get it attention for improvement, so I'm sure that these updates will eventually happen, but let us hope they happen soon. Eric (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If there are particular facts that are new/out of date/wrong and you have a source, then please do add them. Use the format of existing references to cite sources. It isn't always necessary to cite a source for a fact if it's not controversial, but if it's something negative about a living person then a reliable source is essential. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
One doesn't control "your" Wikipedia page, and its frowned upon to do even more than minor editing. See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Accolades, long credit lists, etc, are entirely inappropriate. In fact, the "Books" list is already way too long and should be restricted to major works. I agree, though, that the article needs some cleanup and verification against proper sources, and probably some additional material concerning her work, rather than just making her controversies and lawsuits the main focus of the article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and she clearly acknowledged and delineated that it wasn't hers to control (at least that is how I read it from the link given above) by stating "my" Wikipedia page. I also agree this page needs tidying up to bring it up to standard. Gippies [gip-eez] (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Litigation section rework

The litigation section was in need of a rework to bring it up to standards. The following sentence, in particular, was a poorly constructed run-on sentence. Read in one breath it lacked coherency:

With the lawsuit pending, Johnson, the bulk of whose income "just a few hundred dollars per month" was derived from her self-named web site, changed her stage name to Violetta Blue,[9] and then to Noname Jane pursuant to a preliminary injunction and court order to cease using "names, trademarks and Internet domains confusingly similar to, or identical to, Plaintiff's trademark VIOLET BLUE,"[6] which was filed in 2007,[7] and Johnson announced that her web site's name would also change in the near future.

The above also didn't meet a number of reasonable tests. The part about Ms Johnson's income goes beyond scope for the original overall subject of this page (Violet Blue). To test that, the income of Ms Blue (if it is/was known) during the trial from her various activities would not be within scope on Ms Johnson's page and so likewise to maintain NPV it doesn't seem in keeping for this info to remain here. If the income level of Ms Johnson is pertinent to the record, then it should be placed on Ms Johnson's page. Additionally, the wording implies that the level of affluence of the defendant in some way effects the validity and/or outcome of the lawsuit. Given that a federal judge has presided over this case (and thus he/she has decided the validity and outcome) it doesn't seem appropriate to imply, aside from the fact it is personal opinion.

Ms Johnson's intermediate name change to "Violetta Blue" during the trial is also out of scope for the original subject matter. This information is also not reflected on Ms Johnson's page and so can't be of great significance to the issue - but if this information is pertinent to the record then it should be placed on Ms Johnson's page.

The reworked line now reads:

Pursuant to a preliminary injunction and court order filed in 2007 to cease using "names, trademarks and Internet domains confusingly similar to, or identical to, Plaintiff's trademark VIOLET BLUE,".[6], Johnson changed her stage name to Noname Jane.

..which is much more concise and offers greater readability Gippies [gip-eez] (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Birth name - Wendi Sullivan

Hello everyone. I am a new user to wikipedia, and was wondering why the birth name of Violet Blue (Wendi Sullivan) is continually deleted from her entry. Her birth record (birth certificate) in Alameda County is in the name of Wendi S Sullivan. If someone could let me know why this information is being suppressed I would be most appreciative.

Thank you!

Marcos12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcos12 (talkcontribs) 21:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to provide a verifiable and reliable source to vouch for your proposed change. Who is the "her" in the birth certificate, is it even the same person? It may well be, but you have to be able to prove it. Franamax (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that even if correct, this is WP:BLPPRIMARY. This type of information needs to be sourced from a newspaper article etc. Also, the question of Ms Blue's birth name and date of birth seems to be something of a sore point, see Talk:Violet_Blue_(author)#The_birth_year_recently_added.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Birth name

There are a number of contemporary sources referencing Ms. Blue's birth name as Wendi(y) Sullivan:

http://business.avn.com/articles/legal/The-Once-and-Future-Violet-Blue-Holds-a-Reclaim-the-Name-Benefit-Concert-54884.html

http://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cand/196989/119.pdf (Note she does NOT deny that her name was/is Wendy Sullivan)

Also, the encyclopedia dramatica page lists her correct birth name and birth date

Additionally, there are public records available verifying that Wendy Sullivan is Ms. Blues birth name. Would a scan of a birth certificate or police report suffice?

I am confused as to why there is such controversy over a fairly simple thing. Violet Blue is a pen-name that didn't even exist until 1999/2000. Why such a burden of proof on this particular issue?

Respectfully,

Marcos12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcos12 (talkcontribs) 00:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Because nobody has put up any form of reliable source for Violet's real name. Encyclopedia Dramatica does not count as it's user edited, most public sources count as primary sources and thus are off-limits. And that court document you put up from findforms is a primary document as well. Tabercil (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
This has all been discussed before. In the findforms document, Blue "denies that her name is, or ever was, Wendy Sullivan Blue". User:BenBurch offered to apologize if Blue produced her birth certificate and showed that the Wendi S Sullivan claim was wrong, but this never happened. There is an interesting story here for any mainstream journalist willing to look into it, but the article cannot be altered on the basis of original research.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

What is a source that would be acceptable to the editors for this situation? High school yearbook? Could someone kindly give me an idea as to what would work in this particular case? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcos12 (talkcontribs) 22:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to connect the entire chain from birth certificate to person today, all with reliable sources. It's not sufficient to post a yearbook photo, you have to prove the connection. Referring to blogs is not enough and we're not investigative journalists here anyway. You have a (random) birth certificate, a (random) high-school yearbook photo, and (possibly, though you haven't mentioned it) court records of a legal name change. Those are all primary sources and are not enough to draw your desired conclusion. We only report on what others have said, in high-quality reliable sources. A (for example) NY Times article or other such quality source which discusses the link between the primary documents would be needed. We don't do rumours here, no matter how plausible they are. Franamax (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

OK thank you for the clarification! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcos12 (talkcontribs) 22:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

One more question, is it allowable to discuss the fact that Ms. Blue's birth name is RUMORED (but not confirmed) to be Wendi Sullivan? I believe this information is relevant because Ms Blue makes a point of stating that her "real name" is Violet Blue. As user ianmacm stated, there is an interesting story here. Ms Blue's birthday and alleged real name has been discussed in a number of reliable sources. --Marcos12 (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles cannot say "it is rumored that..." because it is a clear violation of WP:V and WP:WEASEL. In view of all the controversy over the issue (the Noname Jane lawsuit etc) it is surprising that a mainstream source has not cleared this up once and for all.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

POV concerns by subject of article

I stumbled across this Google+ post where Ms. Blue expresses that she still has many concerns about this article. I'm not familiar with any of the specifics of the accusations, but the article does read a bit odd to me, so I flagged it for review by someone neutral. There's no reason to have so much detail on the controversy surrounding her surprising name, for example. The bit about litigation seems out of place, too. (Though of course, the article shouldn't have the laudatory tone of her self-written biography on Google+, which she asks to compare to.) —AySz88\^-^ 22:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a somewhat lopsided BLP, but it does reference the material to reliable sources. I'm not sure that all reference to the litigation over her name should be removed, as this might be going too far in the other direction.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure it has to be removed entirely, but a mention should be enough - it is much more about Noname Jane than Violet Blue, and linking to Noname Jane should be enough for anyone that wants the details. —AySz88\^-^ 19:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree that this article is 'lopsided', as Ianmacm puts it above, in that most of it is about various fairly trivial controversies rather than what she's actually notable for, i.e. her writing about sex. That said, it's also correct that everything in it is well sourced, so it doesn't technically violate WP:BLP. I suppose the ideal solution would be for someone to rebalance the article by expanding the material on her sex writing, but that would require someone familiar with the subject to write it - any takers? In the meantime, I've restructured the article to put it in a more logical order, with her books and other activities coming first and the 'controversies' section afterwards. Robofish (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
It should be noted that the subject is very image-conscious. She has shown a tendency in the past to feel that she should have a greater degree of control over our article than can be justified under WP:BLP or WP:NPOV; and has not hesitated to use her many bully pulpits for a bit of what I at least perceive as bullying in a way that most subjects could not achieve. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
"Bully" is a loaded word, but it is a fact that Violet has shown herself to be litigious and if you look over her shoulder in the background of the self portrait she's provided ... :-). I think she has good reason to be interested in this particular article: it has been used in the past to make unsourced negative claims about her (serious BLP violations in our terms) that were the cause of one bout of her litigation. Any small article about a living person can be expected to be lopsided in their favor (simply documenting their activities and achievements) unless they are the subject of well documented controversy. --Simon Speed (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Robofish that if there's a need to balance the article, the non-controversial aspects of the BLP should be increased. The controversies here are relevant to the article, well resourced and only a selection of those the subject has been involved in . (Example: the recent 'booth babe' article and critical response is not in the current version.) The subject courts controversy. Her notability derives in large part from the public attention she has received from these controversies. It's hardly surprising that controversy is included in the article. The No-name Jane stoush in particular is significant, and IMHO should not be reduced/removed. Colonel Tom 21:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Noname Jane

Re this edit: This source says that Noname Jane has used the name Violet Blue since 2000, while IMDb says that she appeared as Violet Blue in the 1999 film S.M.U.T. 14 [6]. Neither of these sources is ideal.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the person in Smut 14 was Violet Love, an Asian performer, not Violet Blue aka noname jane. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
How did you know that one? Did you watch the film for, um, research purposes? Seriously though, there is a cast list for S.M.U.T. 14 here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
That cast list says it's Violet Love. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)