This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Alright, so let's put this up here again. I was rereading the last debate from the archives, and I don't see any consensus to take the extraordinary step of withholding a subject's real name when most of the reliable sources on a given issue have published it. I do see the regular BLP stonewallers, especially Tony Sidaway (or whatever the username is recently) arguing we can't use it. Well, it's verifiable, it's not private (let's not kid ourselves, please), and if there is harm to be done by its publication, that harm has long ago already been done and we would be doing none by mirroring our sources. So, let's have a show of hands. Who here has a better sense of ethics than sources as diverse as Wired and USA Today? These are not exactly tabloid gossip rags, they are well-respected sources who one would expect to closely follow journalistic ethics. Are we really trying to state here that this many sources got it wrong, and that we alone see the light? Is that not the very definition of original research, claiming to know better than our sources?

Absent clear evidence of an actual consensus to leave the name out, which I do not see upon reading the archives, it needs to be reinstated and left. It is entirely verifiable by countless fully reliable sources. BLP can't simply be used as a tool to silence one side of a content debate, which this is. The moment reliable sources are brought in, we are dealing not with BLP issues, but with content decisions. If someone can make a good content-based rationale for not including the name, I'm listening. BLP doesn't apply here, and no amount of handwaving will make it so that it does. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're probably right about consensus (i.e. that there isn't a clear one in favour of withholding the name), but I disagree with almost everything else you write. Suggesting that WP:NOR obligates us to include everything our sources say because including information selectively is just so amazingly completely wrong that I don't know how to respond to it. "Including sourced information selectively" isn't original research, it's a pretty good summary of what we do here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You may perhaps be right about including sourced information "selectively", but we generally do not withhold information unless, 1, it is unverifiable or otherwise fails our content policies, or 2, there is consensus that despite being reliably sourced it is not needed. Neither of those two situations are present here. However, what I feared has happened—BLP was used as a hammer in a content dispute. There's simply no BLP issue here, the real name is not private by any stretch of the imagination and is certainly verifiable. Indeed, every source the article links to, every one, contains the real name. Absent a more substantial objection, I will be putting it back, especially given your agreement that there is not consensus to withhold it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

How often do we need to repeat this? If there is no consensus for withholding, there certainly is none for inclusion. "First do no harm". The name has no encyclopedic value. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That's rather a silly argument. Names have intrinsic value in their properties of identification. We wouldn't call the article "Some internet video", we call it by that video's well-known name. Similarly, there should be a redirect from the person's name to the event article, as standard, and the person's name should be stated in the article, again as standard. Technically, we could talk about "the 43rd President of the United States" or "the soft drink company with a white ribbon on red background logo" without naming them, but to do so is fundamentally unencylopedic when the name is readily available and verifiable, and so of course we include the name unless it's unverifiable as to what it even is. There need be no consensus for including verifiable information. There, rather, needs to be consensus to remove it. If there isn't a consensus to do other than the status quo, we use the status quo, and in this case, the status quo is that well-sourced names are included. Finally, "do no harm" has no bearing here—it does no one any harm to include information already widely available to the public. The name is certainly useful to anyone researching the incident, as some sources may mention <redacted> rather than or in addition to "Star Wars Kid", as that is a common but by no means universal way of referring to the video. There's simply no BLP issue here. One can certainly still argue that (or anything) on content grounds, but "presumption of privacy" applies, first and foremost, to something that actually is private. Just as BLP wouldn't apply to an article about a deceased person or a type of rock, since those are not living persons, its privacy section doesn't apply to something that's not private. We can't even source this article without revealing the real name (at least through linking), after all, because effectively all reliable sources use the real name! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with about 80% of what you have written. The aim of this article is not to identify the person in question, but to document the phenomenon. Of course repeating the name here can do harm, and your doing so is rather WP:POINTy. There is a difference between information that is available somehow (most information is), and information that is right in your face. I agree that we usually require consensus to change the status quo - but, well, the status quo is that the name is not mentioned. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Repeating the name here is in no way intended to be WP:POINTy. It is his name, and that's certainly not "unsourced or poorly sourced" information, indeed, the article's cited sources support it quite well, and they are very reliable. The full aim of the article is to describe the verifiable information about its subject, just like all our articles, and yes, to document the phenomenon. In this case, the situation involves a person. We should, as a matter of course, name them, given that we can reliably and verifiably source the name. Finally, the status quo in general is to use names where a person is involved, as was the status quo here. The only way it was removed was the unjustified and unjustifiable use of BLP as a hammer in a content dispute to remove verifiable, reliably sourced, non-private information. You also have not addressed the utility for research, as having the real name in the article certainly may have utility to researchers, and having a redirect to the article from the real name certainly should be standard practice. Saying you "disagree with about 80%" of what I wrote means nothing. What do you disagree with, and more importantly, why? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

We, the community of Wikipedians, can hold up higher ethical standards than those a country's legal system might be able to provide, "do no harm" covers this nicely in my humble opinion. Especially American Law sucks big time in protecting the right to informal self-determination of individuals as well as private data protection in general (medical data, court archives, gov...). Sometimes it might be useful to take a look at foreign law systems, though I much prefer to appeal to common sense and morals.

This isn't just about sources or wiki creep, but personality rights and ethics.

It is not a "courtesy" to not publish his name here given that he "had to endure, and still endures today, harassment and derision from his high-school mates and the public at large." and, he "will be under psychiatric care for an indefinite amount of time." this is our duty in the name of humanity. Given his current medical condition it is not far-fetched to call the publishing of his birth name on what is perhaps the world's largest reference source attempted incitement to injury. -- 3vil-Lyn (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC).

May American law never recognize such a "right"! The right we have here, is actually the right to publish any true information and not to be censored (pardon me, "informationally self-determined") by those who might not like it. However, I suppose this is not particularly the place to debate the finer points of freedom of speech, as I don't think there's much question that putting the name here is legal. Rather, the concern seems to be ethical. I can understand the ethical issues—yet, I think the concerns are misplaced. Let's look at the very essay ("avoiding harm") that you pointed me to. I'm actually glad to use it, it supports my position! Here are the questions it asks.

• "Is the information already widely known?" It certainly is, it's been published in effectively all reliable source material about the issue.
• "Is the information definitive and factual?" I don't believe there's any question that the information here is factual and correct. It is not rumor or speculation.
• "Is the information given due weight in relation to the subject's notability?" Determining due weight is generally quite easy—we review our sources. In this case, the sources seem to have very wide agreement that a mention of the real name is due in the article, and when we mention a person or thing, we should, as a matter of course as a reference work, identify that person or thing by name. That's what reference works do.

What happened to this guy sincerely sucks. I won't argue with that, I went to high school too (perhaps longer ago than I'd like to admit), and I hate people like the ones that did this. But it did happen, and our job is to record what happened as accurately and thoroughly as possible. We should never deliberately compromise our accuracy. That is harm to the core of what we intend to be—a thorough reference work. And in this case, using the name properly would not even have any chance of harm. These worms aren't going back in the can, no matter what we do. A quick Google for "Star Wars kid" reveals the name in ten seconds. We're putting ourselves on way too high of a pedestal if we think it matters whether or not we use the name in the face of that, and we're certainly putting ourselves in too high of an ivory tower if we look at subjective notions of what might do "harm" rather than objectively following what we can reliably source. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm Seraphimblade, would American law recognize what I, and some other fraggles, consider a fundamental right there would have been no public airing of a private clip nor further spread of his name in print media. I do like the idea of my private videos being private ;) You are right about that this "inclusion test" fails but the author also mentions that in cases

where a person is notable primarily for a single event in their life, like with subjects of Internet phenomena, it may be unnecessary to include a full biography of a person, or even their name. We don't need his name here nor a full biography to describe the Star Wars kid phenomena. We also do harm by spreading or preserving his name as an online reference. Who cares about a ten years old newspaper article? Maybe one day he looks at this with the eyes of a man and a big smile on his face (I sure hope so), but right now it can jeopardize the success of his therapy.

Do you know this Big Brother reality television show? I remember one episode where some one got a mental breakdown just because a passerby shouted some obscenities over the fence. Today such reallife-series don't air live anymore but have a five minute "editorial buffer". This guy has no buffer once he gets recognized in public and becomes spot on a victim of ridicule or pranks. Sure he can change looks, but he can't grow in confidence or even change his name so easily.

I would suggest to not follow this one exemplary inclusion test to the letter, but rather keep the spirit of the "do no harm" essay. Maybe I will try to reword it on some rainy day. ;)

For me the "do no harm" principle is a safe heaven for both legal and ethical issues, as it covers multiple Wikipedia policies in a simple wording.

Besides WP:BLP policy already emphasizes how Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so.

Every editor here is supposed to have some moral or ethical framework, which should allow you to sense information that almost certainly will do harm, while the informational value might be very small if any. In such cases it is reasonable to omit the information. Some Google stalker will have no problem to find out his name, but the public at large doesn't need to know in one glance. Just because something is legal doesn't make it worthy for inclusion or even moral. Unlike Wired or USA Today (a geek zine and a boulevard mag) we do not need to violate journalistic ethics for an exposé and should hold up heigher ethical standards than some news bloggers (which turned out to be the first source). The article works well without his name. How did this clever chap on your user page word it? “The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide [...]” - Einstein “The Goal”, 1939

Wether you derive your ethics from religion or from your own experiences and ratio (or both) shouldn't matter here. Maintaining his name as a worldwide reference on Wikipedia will harm his future and acts contrary to his struggle to overcome the past, while adding nothing essential to the article. You have even acknowledged that there might be ethical issues by your own standards. In my opinion it doesn't compromise Wikipedias concept at all to leave out such sensible information where it adds nothing substantial to an article but does HARM. Being under psychiatric care for an indefinite amount of time is the very definition of harm done to somebody. Maybe one day there will be a book "I was Star Wars kid" or something, then we have to talk again ;) -- 3vil-Lyn (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, this is a great issue. I support listing the name. In the legal versus ethical debate, neither side supports leaving the name out. What supports the assumption that leaving the person's name out of an encyclopedia article is good for his psychological well being? This is a traumatic experience that he endured in his past (and very likely still endures). Couldn't acceptance of the event be a legitimate part of his process? A valid argument can be made that censuring an impartial chronicle of the events supports the trauma of the situation. I believe that we could include his name and be closer to truth and compassion, the best of both worlds. My argument ends there, but I'm going to add the following: Twenty minutes ago, I watched the SWK parody on Arrested Development, and wanted to know more about the topic. The first place I looked was Wikipedia, where I read this article. The article was informative and compassionate, but the person's name was notably absent. Because I am familiar with wikipedia and have contributed to articles in the past, the second place I looked was the talk page, where I got the info almost immediately. Someone else with less familiarity of this website might instead search for another source which is not necessarily going to be as impartial or compassionate. I mention this on emotional grounds, not intellectual ones. I have no logical argument for why wikipedia should be anyone's inclusive source of information. I do feel emotionally that this site should be as inclusive and honest as possible. I agree that ethics should be followed, and I would fully support it if encyclopedists had the same stricture as doctors, to first do no harm, and I believe that the path of full truth is ultimately the least harmful. Silasthecat (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Last time I checked, I wasn't one of the "BLP regulars" and yet I still found myself siding against inclusion of the kids name. The article isn't about him, its about the video and its viral explosion. Whether or not his name is there isn't relevant; the article still reads fine with or without it. Since its not necessary for understanding the article, I think we have to fall back on idea of "do no harm" or the guidelines people notable for one event. Shell ^babelfish 07:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Well, I do see that consensus will likely not be reached easily here, especially given the previous discussion which seemed close to consensus to include. I would disagree with Shell that the article "reads fine" without it, it is missing an important component (the name of the person involved), and reads very awkwardly with so many pronouns. It was pretty clear to me upon reading the article (and this is why I'm in favor of including the real name) that we are deliberately ducking including the name, which to me seems like a form of POV pushing: "All these reliable sources were WRONG to include the name, we're going to deliberately not do it!" And of course, that is in fact the case, we really are quite deliberately refusing to follow the lead of reliable sources on our own thoughts that they are "just wrong!". I think that perhaps a further stage of dispute resolution will be necessary, I would personally suggest RfC or another means to gather wider input but am open to suggestion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone ever considered trying to improve the article in any other way, rather than makig a point over his name? It only has 4 cites! People here are more interested in finding references to win this argument than making wikipedia better :-(.Yobmod (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a valid question. The articles I have come across that can be sourced don't even mention Star Wars Kid, but rather his real name. They talk about how laws in Cyber-bullying are being created, and the lawsuit his family won. In fact, quite a few don't even mention Star Wars Kid, but rather focus on him - the person - and the laws being created to protect kids like him from that type of malicious behavior. Could the article be improved? Sure it could. However, I fail to see any benefit to adding articles that don't mention Star Wars Kid even if they are directly related to the issue because they are about the person, not the internet video. At that point, it becomes OR, because his name isn't established in the article. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment- This is a very interesting discussion, as I pretty much agree with both sides. On the one hand what he did is notable, well sourced and I personally cannot see how it could be harmful. However, I find myself falling on the "do not include" side, the fact is his name is not important more than "Star Wars Kid". What's more he was a minor when the event happened, and the video was leaked as part of bullying. The benefits of showing his actual name (very little, more than completeness) do not outweigh the potential harm it could do. --WORM | MЯOW 07:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Given that the sources to the article all include the subject's name, the Wikipedia article probably should too. To somewhat allay concerns, keep it out of the lead and mention it only once. I imagine the type of person who would misuse such information wouldn't bother to read past the table of contents anyway. And if they're that determined, well, it's already common knowledge anyway. The sources will always be readily available if they're linked in the reference section. The cat is out of the bag, and if you've ever tried to put a cat into a pet carrier you'll understand my skepticism with respect to Wikipedia's ability to suppress this person's name. --Gimme danger (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion - If both sides agree to use WP:HARM as a guideline despite the fact that it is an essay, then WP:HARM#Inclusion of names and biographical details is conclusive: the name should not be included. If you want an actual policy, then here you go: WP:COMMON. Seraphimblade, your repeated assertions that exclusion violates WP:OR makes me wonder if you've even read it. This is editorial control. I respect your passion to avoid censorship. Indeed if I thought anything could potentially be gained by inclusion or hurt by exclusion, I would be right there with you. You say it's for utility and consistent formatting. Consistency is valid argument, but not very heavy, it should be our last priority. We are losing information by censoring his name, but what does that really mean in this case? IMO it simply means one investigating the SWK moves one link down the google list. I am thoroughly convinced by Evil Lyn's argument. The kid is in frickin' therapy. Forcing people interested in his name to click a few more times is a small price for a clean conscience. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 09:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

1. I agree with Seraphimblade. The only real reason the name would be excluded is to prevent harm to the subject. The fact that his name was largely reported, however, makes that a moot point. So I support inclusion per all of Seraphimblade's arguments. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• • AzureFury, I did think I should clarify here. I certainly understand why you had a difficult time understanding my point, as I had a hard time myself understanding (let alone articulating) why this bothered me. NOR is indeed the wrong issue here, and I had conceded that, as editorial control is allowed by NOR. However, it is in fact the clear and cogent refutation that OR is an issue here that brought me to the realization of what the issue really is. Editorial control is allowed if and only if it doesn't impact NPOV. We would not, for example, present only the views of the pro-life or pro-choice movements in our article on abortion. We would instead present both. To present only one would be a form of editorial control which would present a situation where we are, by omission rather than commission, writing a non-neutral article. The same has occurred here. Our omission of the name (especially when that is not our standard practice) is a subtle form of POV pushing. The POV we are pushing is, namely, "These sources were wrong to name the kid." I can present literally dozens of sources which (tacitly, by doing so) do not agree that inclusion of the name is wrong. To deliberately act against reliable sources in the name of "editorial control" or "ethics" or what have you is POV pushing, no matter how right one thinks one is. That is a tremendously dangerous precedent to set, and strikes at the heart of our founding principle, neutrality.
  • In this particular case, the article reads awkwardly and in a very nonstandard way without inclusion of the real name. It becomes readily clear to an alert reader that we are deliberately omitting it. If that reader becomes curious as to why (perhaps no one knows?) and checks the sources, it would become clear in an instant that we are deliberately suppressing it, and it would probably become apparent as to why as well. I forgot who it was that said it, but I recall reading during one neutrality dispute that "If the reader cannot, from reading the article, get any idea as to what those who wrote it actually think of the situation, the article meets NPOV." I think this is an excellent gauge, and it fails here. A moderately intelligent and reasonably alert reader could easily tell there is an agenda here on the part of the editors of the article. That is not acceptable. Our goal is not to push an agenda, no matter how noble it may seem, simply to catalogue knowledge and follow our reliable sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's see one of these sources then. You call it POV. I call it due weight. It is generally agreed that distribution of the kid's video in association with his name has caused him tremendous grief. So much so that to imply by omission that the distribution of his name was a mistake would be analogous to implying in the 9/11 article that genocide is bad. What if we assume it was a mistake to release his name in the first place? Publishing it on the Wiki simply because other mainstream sources have is no better than jumping off a bridge because all the cool kids are doing it. Objectivity is not the lack of opinion. I don't see a violation of NPOV here.

This issue is debatable, but it's not controversial because there are no sides. Unless you consider this SWK vs Wiki? For this reason, I don't think your abortion comparison is accurate.

This is from the actual policy on biographies of living persons:

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.

There are exceptions to every rule and this includes WP:CENSOR. I think you'll agree that censorship gets people riled up probably more than any other concept in Wikipedia. Do you think this article will be the Wiki's doom if we exclude his name? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be after a straw man with regards to WP:CENSOR. The issue here is the one rule which, at least in article space, gets absolutely no exceptions—this being WP:NPOV. This is our founding, core principle, and not even WP:BLP can override it. There is no goal for which we can justifiably sacrifice neutrality. Not even the noblest. If we were to pick a noble cause to sacrifice neutrality for, I can think of some I would like far better than withholding already-public information, but even in those cases, neutrality must be preserved. Our articles must present the duly-weighted viewpoints of reliable sources, while, ideally, giving no weight at all to the thoughts of the article's editors.

So, when we have a neutrality dispute, what do we do? We look at the sources, both individually and in aggregate, to determine if something is fringe/minority, if it is majority, or if it is nearly universal. If it is fringe, we may well choose not to present it at all. Significant-minority viewpoints should be presented and duly weighted, as for majority viewpoints. Nearly universal viewpoints should be stated as the consensus position.

And our reliable sources, with professional standards for ethics, have overwhelmingly stated "It is acceptable and desirable to include the name." How did they state that? By including it in effectively every reliable source on this topic, including without exception those sources we cite within this article! That brings two things into play. Firstly, this is not private information. It is, in fact, quite public, when a simple Google for "Star Wars kid" readily turns it up. We didn't exactly go digging deep to find this out. Secondly, there is no issue of "denigration". If you state that my name is Todd, well guess what, it is! You're not denigrating me by saying that. The article does not denigrate its subject, because we do not express opinion or viewpoints, we simply report facts. A person's name is simple, factual, and in this case highly verifiable information. It does not "denigrate" them to state it. That is quite the point here—we do not express any view but that expressed by our reliable sources. In this case, those sources have overwhelmingly spoken—including the name is ethical and acceptable. It doesn't matter whether you or I disagree with them, just as it would not matter if I personally disagreed with what any source said. Unless I can find other reliable sources which express similar disagreement, what the source says goes, and what you or I think matters not a bit.

So, to answer your last question. Would this particular article be our doom if not taken care of? Not in and of itself. Would the idea that anything, BLP or otherwise, trumps neutrality, be our doom? Without question. Wikipedia's bedrock, its roots, are in total impartiality, in "looking it up" rather than "writing it ourselves". Anything we do to endanger that erodes the foundation the project is built upon. So, while this given issue may not endanger the project in and of itself, the principle it would set would be a terrible one. This is the first time that I have ever seen established editors who I respect support anything even resembling a POV push. In seeing that, I am both ashamed and frightened. First, we write neutrally and include verifiable information, while never deliberately compromising neutrality by censoring it. That is first, not "do no harm" or anything else. Everything else is secondary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a misstatement of WP policy - BLP trumps NPOV, in the sense that if saying something neutral violates BLP (and the associated WP:BLP1E ) then we say nothing. Seraphimblade - I know you disagree with this, but it's settled policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that you misstate. Absolutely nothing trumps NPOV. If we cannot write neutrally, we should at minimum write nothing at all. In this case, that is not an option—the subject unquestionably is one which we should have an article on. BLP1E similarly does not apply here—we are covering the event, not the person, just as the reliable sources do. That is right and proper, we should do as the sources do, and that is clearly their style of coverage. However, "cover the event, not the person" does not translate to "omit names when they are clearly verifiable and factual", especially when they are already public information. And from reading through the past discussions, I see anything but "settled policy", especially as it applies here. NPOV, on the other hand, is settled policy, and is indeed the bedrock and foundation upon which this project is built. We should not let anything, including subjective notions of "harm", erode that foundation. To do so is to jeopardize the entire project rests and the means by which it has been built. We should never sacrifice neutrality for any reason, and realistically, I don't believe there is a consensus to do so. Rather, there have been heavy-handed attempts to silence those who disagree, and those are quite a few. There is no acceptable reason to breach neutrality, and anytime we try to justify it, we are no better than any POV pusher who believes their cause to be "just enough" or "noble enough" to justify violating NPOV. Why should we stop anyone else from pushing POV in the pursuit of their "noble cause", if we push POV to pursue one we see as such? The only possible defense is to say "We do not violate NPOV, ever, for any reason," and then to live by that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That MSM sources were justified in publishing his name is a POV. That including his name would violate NPOV is a POV. That BLP1E does not apply here is a POV. That covering the event doesn't excuse omitting his name is a POV. That it is a subjective interpretation of "harm" is a POV. You can call everything a POV. What position is being hurt by leaving the kid's name out?

This is from WP:NPOV:

...content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.

Does anyone dispute that the video led to the mental traumatization of the kid? The perspective that he was not hurt by being identified does not exist. So it is appropriately weighted when the kid's name is left out. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 14:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Seraphim - I would like to repeat myself, that this has already been up the flagpole and down again at policy levels (Jimbo, Arbcom members, senior admins, etc) and that the conclusion is that BLP and particularly BLP1E trump your interpretation of NPOV here.

You don't have to agree. But that's the current policy consensus. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

GWH, I've read the previous discussion on this issue. There was no consensus in it. In a content dispute, it doesn't matter if a given person is a member of ArbCom, or a senior admin, or a regular editor. It doesn't even matter if it's Jimbo, given that I see no reason to believe he was speaking here as "Jimbo the editor", not "Jimbo the founder", from his one offhanded comment that he did not bother to back up. The same is true of "policy level"—every editor is entitled to a say on policy, not only admins or ArbCom or whatever the case may be. In a neutrality dispute, we look ultimately not to a consensus of editors—the final say rests with a consensus of sources. And the consensus of sources is, overwhelmingly, that it is desirable, ethical, and appropriate to include the name. How do we know that? By the fact that, overwhelmingly, they did so. We don't "correct" our sources, we follow them. That's the very essence of NPOV. Does BLP1E apply here? Of course it does, that's why we have an event article, not a pseudo-"biography" on the person. If someone started such a "biography", I would be first in line arguing to merge it here (but, with an appropriate redirect left in place). AzureFury's quote from NPOV is quite the perfect one. We are simply not presenting fairly the overwhelming consensus among sources that including the name is desirable and appropriate, because we are excluding it. It matters not a bit if we personally like or support that position, just as it never matters what our personal views are when writing an article. We present things as sources do, using, ultimately, their viewpoint. We're deviating from that standard here, and as a result, we have an article which fails the simple neutrality test—reading the article gives a very clear indication of what its editors' viewpoints are. That is not acceptable, even if we try to use an appeal to sympathy to make it otherwise. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Other sources do not have to abide by our policies - something that reputable news sources can get away with may completely be in violation of any number of Wikipedia's policies such as BLP (or in this case, BLP1E and its associated sensitivity). It's not a non-neutral point of view to apply Wikipedia policies. Calling it a NPOV violation to exclude the name is bizarre logic.

Again - I know you very passionately disagree, but this is something that has a strong working consensus among project higher-ups. If you intend to change it, you should take it to AN and Jimmy's talk page and go hash it out there. Disagreeing with the consensus is your right. Unilaterally breaking it - which you seem to be working up towards - seems to me to be a huge mistake. Work the process in the right places (not just here). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

GWH, to be quite honest, I find it strange and somewhat insulting that you accuse me of "breaking the consensus" when I have not once edited this article, and instead discussed an edit I knew would be controversial on the talk page. Is not the purpose of talk page discussion to discuss controversial or disputed edits to the article? This isn't really an administrative issue, nor did Jimbo (as far as I can see) comment as anything but an editor here, so I'm unsure why you believe other venues would be more appropriate than the talk page. I also find talk of "sensitivity" to be rather bizarre logic in and of itself, when the name is widely and commonly known and available, and indeed every source we link to from the article prints it. This is rather unavoidable—we couldn't source the article without using sources that name him, they effectively universally do! We are, therefore, not keeping anything private when there is no privacy to protect. I find it to be this logic that is bizarre. Pushing our own editorial bias rather than reflecting sources is exactly what an NPOV violation is. That's not "bizarre logic", that's the definition of neutrality—we follow sources whether we personally agree with them or not. If I personally believe that the Earth is flat (and this belief exists, believe it or not!), and I inserted that into the Earth article, I would be reverted as POV pushing, as the overwhelming majority of reliable sources indicate that the Earth is in fact a nearly spherical round planet. This is no different. The overwhelming majority of sources indicate that the name should be used. Failing to use it on "I personally disagree" or even "Other policies disagree" grounds is a POV push. That's how NPOV works, and NPOV is a founding, Foundation issue which nothing trumps. BLP is a good thing as it's intended, when it excludes unsourced or poorly sourced information about living people, but it is a poor thing indeed if it begins to exclude well sourced information that highly reliable sources have published extensively. We cannot protect privacy when there isn't any privacy to begin with. As to "higher ups", I will reiterate that (with the exception of Jimbo taking an office action), it matters not whether a "higher up" or a "lower down" happens to hold any given position. In content disputes, all voices are equal, or at least that's the way it's intended to be. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand the argument that including the name might be harmful, but I don't agree with it. If this was one week after the inciting incident, or even one year, a reasonable argument could be made that including the name would fan the flames of a spreading situation. Do no harm is a crucial guideline. But what is the likelihood of substantive harm at this point in providing objective information? When we report the truth, there is a reasonable limit to the responsibility we shoulder for others who might act inappropriately, and a limit to how much we should presume to protect an adult with the assumption that we know what is best for him, regarding his processing this event and finding acceptance for this part of his life. Silasthecat (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• He told us what was best for him by going into therapy and suing the kids who released the video. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Weakly oppose inclusion. Though I've argued the other side in the past, I've marginally come around to thinking that the inclusion of the name is not supportable from both an encyclopedic standpoint and a moral one. This kid is essentially a minor who has been victimized, and in other, similar circumstances, absolutely no one would be saying "we should print this underaged kid's name". I do believe a legitimate purpose is served by printing the name--that of asserting Wikipedia's professional standards alongside news organs such as the New York Times, which have printed the name--but I also believe that that is trumped by the kid's right to privacy. Ford MF (talk) 03:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this was getting to be quite unwieldly so I thought I would break out a new section so I can easily respond to the AFC. I read over all the arguments for and against name inclusion. After reviewing the references in the article, I felt [1] was the most important one to consider. First, to correct Ford's comment "This kid is essentially a minor", I want to point out that although he was a minor at the time of the bullying, he is 21 now, and he is openly talking about what happened, using his real name. I feel the real harm in the article is calling it Star Wars kid. Shouldn't we be calling it David Knight with a redirect from Star Wars kid? That is what I am seeing missing from NPOV right now. The article, by its very name, is focusing on the crime, instead of the person, who is still being interviewed today 7 years after the fact. The person is notable. The Star Wars kid is part of this notability, and should serve a secondary roll to it to keep a NPOV. Turlo Lomon (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Linked the wrong article and typed the wrong name in my rush to respond. It also helps if I read them a bit closer. Ok, reviewing the sources - and reading them fully this time. [[<redacted>]] is used in each and every one. He was 14 at the time of the video, which took place, Nov 4, 2002. This makes him 19-20 right now. He is no longer a minor. Ford stating "this kid is essentially a minor" is incorrect. He is an adult that was victimized as a minor. In my opinion, the article title focuses on the crime instead of the person who was victimized (and still the subject of discussion 6 years after the fact), perhaps the article should be moved to [[<redacted>]] with a redirect from Star Wars kid. There are additional references that can be added [2] has several listed at the bottom - and notice the article uses his proper name. I am in agreement that <redacted> was victimized - so, to keep to a NPOV, let's stop the victimization from continuing and focus on the individual, not the crime - we should also include additional sources that are not making fun of him - [3], [4], his appearances on TV, etc. They are all documented. By focusing on the crime, we are missing out on the rest of his life - and the rest of his notability. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that the person is notable. What has he done besides this? It is the video that is notable, he just happens to be in it. Most people will probably come here from Viral Video where, not surprisingly, he was called the Star Wars kid.

The point of opposition to the name is that by including the name we would contribute to the crime. Reweighting the article such that the crime is not the center does not solve the dispute. The fact that he's still being interviewed about this shows what a significant, negative impact this has had on his life. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What about just emailing the guy and asking him if he would mind it if his name was included on Wikipedia? It seems like this would be a fair way of determining if it'll be harmful or not. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no dispute if he consents. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Would emailing him violate wikipedia's stricture on original research? Silasthecat (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What would be in the article is his name, trivially not original research. The only thing asking him does is resolving the concerns of WP:HARM and WP:BLP. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 09:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cynic that I am, I note that if he says "no, I wouldn't like that", we would have a bunch of people popping up to complain about us "giving in" to the personal viewpoint of an article subject, etc etc etc. I am not sure that this would settle it comfortably at all. Shimgray | talk | 12:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. I agree with Seraphimblade that "the article reads awkwardly and in a very nonstandard way without inclusion of the real name". That was exactly what I thought when I was reading the article, and that was what brought me to the talk page. The person is not notable to deserve an own article per BLP, but is part of a notable event, and omitting his name, which is public information, from the discussion of the event is awkward and unencyclopedic.

  That said, I think there are some real cultural differences at work here. When I moved from the US to Switzerland, I was surprised to find that the newspapers here don't mention the names of the people in the stories! They are all of the sort "J. Doe (not his real name) went amok and killed three people, Alice, Bob, and Charlie (not their real names)". In the US, you would already know the names of the perpetrator, the victims, their relatives, the schoolteachers, their friends, and their neighbors... But anyway, Wikipedia is not a Swiss newspaper, and if the article is based on widely disseminated news reports that include the name, not including it is self-censoring for pushing an agenda. If we were reporting on a Swiss story where the names were still private, it would be a different story, of course. --Itub (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Those who oppose keep citing WP:HARM. Well, Google <redacted> (as a potential employer might do) and every single result ties that name to the video. Our exclusion of the name isn't going to change that. Not only that, but his name was included in the lawsuit, so it's public record, and he used his real name in interviews with the press. No further harm is coming to him by our inclusion and our exclusion of it simply makes the article incomplete. howcheng {chat} 05:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It has become relatively clear that there is still no consensus to exclude the real name (including, for those who care, among admins, see the comment from Seresin and Howcheng). Sourced content cannot be excluded without consensus, and there is and has never been such a consensus here, so absent a change in that by tomorrow, I will be recreating the redirect and reinserting the name. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You are acting against preexisting wider consensus on this, and against much good advice not to. You can't run into a corner and generate a new smaller consensus against an existing larger one. I'm notifying all the usual suspects and strongly urge you to hold off. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Support inclusion As I've said before, its factual, its accurate, its sourced, it should be included. Consensus regarding specific articles should, and have always been, determined in their respective talk pages. You dont get to invoke "larger consensus" just becouse you disagree with where things are going, and by the way, we have a name for "notifying all the usual suspects" it'a called canvassing and its higly frowned upon so I strongly urge you to hold off. 189.104.44.205 (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that calling attention to a problem is a violation of our canvassing policy. In fact it is nothing of the sort - the Administrators' noticeboard and incidents noticeboards exist specifically for this reason. It's previously been an AN topic. I also notified Jimmy Wales as he personally has weighed in on the topic before. This is not canvassing. The previous wider consensus was reached by much wider sets of administrators and others than the small group here, and trying to "overturn" that decision by a small group here is an abuse of process. Notifying others to come review is both normal and entirely appropriate. Please don't go around threatening Wikipedia administrators with vague threats of WP policy violations when you know less about the policy than they do. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is this consensus you speak of? After digging through the archives, I've failed to find it. --Itub (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I presume, then, GWH, that you will not mind if I notify those who were involved in the previous discussion, regardless of the side they took? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion for the reason that it's been excluded thus far: SWK is a meme, this is not a notable individual. If he ever becomes notable enough for a biography, based on independent non-trivial biographical sources, then fine, but there is no way we should be leading the world in putting this upa s first Google hit for the guy's name. His transient notability is long since over, the case for including his name is weakening every day. There is also a very substantial difference between being able to find SWK from the name, and finding the name from SWK. If you don't know the name, you are not really any less well informed about the meme, the name is a piece of trivia of only mild interest. Just because some others stoop to publicising it is not a good argument for us doing so. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion. It's not about him, it's about the meme. Consider, for instance, Montreal-Philippines cutlery controversy, which was originally formatted to be an article about the small boy at the center of it. DS (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Guy. The notability attaches to the meme, not to the person. Every notable or encyclopaedic element of the subject here (description of the incident, description of the media coverage, discussion of cultural references) can be completely covered without the use of the name, simply because all of those elements are attributes of the meme. --bainer (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion as the article is about the meme, not the person. The person's name is trivial and unnecessary to discuss or present the meme. The person is not notable; only the meme is notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion. This is covered by WP:BLP. The subject has no notability beside this video, and that notability is as the "Star Wars Kid", not his actual name. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. The article might be based on the meme, but it's centered around <redacted>. Even the opposers must admit the article seems to purposely avoid the name, calling him "the individual", and "the boy", which I feel makes the article seem very awkward to read. If consensus here is to exclude the name, i'd propose a rewrite. I don't believe Wikipedia should be censored, as long as reliable third party sources have reported the information. What more harm can be done by inserting a name thats already in public record, and reported on by multiple major news sources? He did consent to his name being released into public record when he began the lawsuit, did he not? MattWT (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion- as another editor mentioned, since this occurred when he was a minor, and was posted surreptitiously without his consent, i'd say that it isn't necessary for his real name to remain. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion - frankly, its getting rather tiring to be back here every week to two months when someone brings this up again; consensus can change, but unless something new happens (such as a major change to the subject or the BLP policy), its unlikely that this change will happen in so short a time. BLP, one event, full stop. If you feel the wording is awkward, that's a call for good editing, not for a change in policy. Of course the article purposely avoids using the name - that was the intention; cover the incident, not the person. Its a bit frustrating to see the censorship tossed in yet again because seriously folks, playing that card makes it look like you have a weak case otherwise. Shell ^babelfish 02:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Shell, need a bit more straw? The issue here is not only censorship (though that is a major one), the main issue here is neutrality. We don't second-guess sources. We follow them. They decided the name should be included in material on this subject, overwhelmingly. I can source that beyond reliability and beyond any doubt. So we put the name. We don't second guess sources, whether we personally agree with them or not. That is the heart of NPOV. As to the frequency of being "back here", perhaps that should tell you something about whether this decision actually does or does not enjoy consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Seraphim, there are editors here who do not agree with your viewpoints; belittling their arguments repeatedly isn't going to make your point any stronger, nor is repeating your point ad nauseum going to convince others. There has already been a great deal of discussion about your view of NPOV and how it relates to this issue. Nothing about any Wikipedia policy requires we include every detail in a source; what to include from a source and how to include it falls into the realm of editorial judgment; if we left out the original video entirely, the NPOV argument might apply, but this is not the case. Conversely, the BLP policy specifically guides us away from including the name in this case for several reasons including notability for one event, dealing with an essentially private figure, the child being unwillingly drawn into this publicity, the harm done and the harm still possible. I'm not willing to accept "well other sources do it" as a guiding principle for Wikipedia quite yet; I hold out a bit more hope that we can rise above some of the general bull that goes on in the media. I'm saddened though that some editors in this discussion seem to honestly feel that a better turned phrase is more important than someone's dignity. Shell ^babelfish 15:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion Time has passed, the guy is no longer a minor, and I feel the "harm" is minimal, if not non-existent. That's the only reason we have to exclude the name, which would normally be fundamental information in such an article. -- Ned Scott 02:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. The individual's name is an encyclopedic fact related to the subject of this article (which is the video, not the person). It is as relevant to the subject as the fact that the individual is from Quebec and that the item in question was a golf ball retriever. The article jumps through several hoops to avoid naming the person, when simply naming him would produce much more elegant prose. As for privacy issues, the name is apparently out there and in the mainstream media; redacting it here does nothing to protect his privacy. Powers ^T 02:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion. He was a minor, he did not want any of this released, he went to court to sue regarding the harm it caused him. Why would we further this harm? --WORM | MЯOW 07:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think the salient points from WP:HARM are In many of these cases, the person in question is a child, or was a child at the time of the notable event. In such cases, some sensitivity needs to be shown in deciding whether or not to include their names, and/or any other biographical details about them which are not relevant to the case. and There is a presumption in favour of privacy, and as such, in most cases, the names should not be restored unless there is a definite consensus to do so. As time has gone one, he has remained as Star Wars Kid. I'm sure his real name is easy to find, but it isn't "common knowledge" and so should remain that way. --WORM | MЯOW 08:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I also feel that some of the arguments for inclusion are distinctly problematic: he was an unwilling victim, but it is asserted by some that simply attempting to mitigate the harm done to him makes him in some way a public person, which sounds like a case of "damned if you don't, damned if you do" and would give carte-blanche to any group of trolls to perpetrate a similar outing on someone through Wikipedia. The idea that he is no longer a minor also seems to be excessively harsh - we are telling people in effect that anything they did as a child will come back to haunt them unless they die before they are 18, which seems to me to be disproportionate. In the UK we have a "rehabilitation of offenders act" which says that a minor convicted of an offence has their record wiped when they reach adulthood (with some exceptions); we seem to be asserting that the opposite should apply, and things done when people lack the maturity of adulthood should become some kind of time bomb for them later on. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. This article isn't about the specific young man, it is about the video and the meme. Until there is significant reason for his personal life to be notable outside this event, there is no reason to include the name. If he wanted his name broadcast in association with the event, there would still be little reason to include it. Given that he does not, BLP (which is just a guideline for propriety and compassion) suggests it certainly should not be there. +sj + 08:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. We are not leading the way, but deriving from secondary sources for information. Excluding the name is not following WP:NPOV and a stilted approach. This is an encyclopedia of the world as is. Ty 10:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion per 日本穣 and basic human dignity: "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." Inclusion of the name in the interest of elegant prose does not seem to me sufficient to overcome that consideration. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion per my arguments in previous sections of this page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Suggested reading: The "Five Ws", fundamental for clear, effective, and—dare I say?—neutral reporting. Notice the presence of who at the top of the list. These rules are good enough for the New York Times, but not for Wikipedia? --Itub (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The New York Times makes it a habit to withhold the names of rape victims (here). They seem comfortable with the inelegant prose label of "the woman" in this 2008 article. Apparently, the 5 Ws aren't always essential, when basic human decency dictates otherwise. But if a W is needed, we do have the perpetrators. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • And rape victims'/accusers' names are also revealed once they become public record, as in Kobe Bryant sexual assault case. howcheng {chat} 16:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
      • As the first article linked, which is somewhat older notes, NYT makes that a case-by-case decision, as "when our best journalistic instincts tell us that a rape charge is being used as a screen for unjustified accusations." You don't get much more "public record" than going to trial, as in the second article I linked, and the victim's name was not used there. It is not standard practice to reveal the identities of rape victims in the press. (Take, for example, this clear statement of Associated Press policy in 2005, here.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Sure, there are of course exceptions to the 5Ws. Besides rape victims, there's the more general case of confidential sources. But the fact remains that in the judgment of many professional media organizations, the Star Wars Kid was not one of the exceptions. --Itub (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
          • But that has no bearing on our judgment about the same. We are our own organization, after all. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
            • And one of our bedrock principles as an organization is that we never editorialize, at least not in article space. By excluding the name, we are subtly writing an editorial, especially when it is clear and obvious that we are deliberately doing so. That editorial reads pretty clearly between the lines, and its text is "These sources were WRONG to include that name!" If the majority of reliable sources had excluded the name, I'd be first in line saying we should follow their lead. But they did include it, overwhelmingly so. There can be no issues of privacy for something that is not private. There can be no issues of harm if the supposed harm has already long since been done (if it existed at all). This simply brings us to an issue of suppression of information clearly germane to the article and quite verifiable through reliable sources because we as editors wish the world wasn't the way it is. That's a damned dangerous precedent to set. Our job, as a reference work, is to show things as they are, not as we wish they were. And in the world as it is, that name is entirely public information. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
              • Another of our principles of organization is that we are mindful of our ability to do real harm. I've set forth above and below why I feel that this is the principle that governs here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
              • Seraphimblade, this is no more suppression of information than any other BLP or BLP1E concern is. Those are standard widely accepted policies here. The difference you assert between those situations and this one is something that the rest of us generally disagree is real or significant. I understand that you disagree but that doesn't change the wider consensus. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
                • GWH, if you see any consensus in the above discussion, I believe that you are reading a different discussion than I. Continually referring to a "wider consensus" does not make one appear from a hat, when it is clear from the above discussion that no consensus does in fact exist (and certainly no consensus that any such do-no-harm principle is applicable here, given the highly public nature of the information in question). Continuing to refer to such a nonexistent "consensus" is the fallacy of proof by assertion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion Some people may come to the article wanting to learn this person's real name, however, it is not relevant information to understanding the incident itself. Wikipedia exists to supply people with relevant information, not to satisfy idle curiosity. Skoojal (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It's as relevant as the fact that he's from Quebec. Powers ^T 13:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • How? It's not really relevant at all. As I said, some people may want to know this, but judgments have to be made about what sort of information Wikipedia should be supplying. Even if including this information here does not do further damage to this person, it would still just be in bad taste to include it. Skoojal (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Added another header because it was getting too long again. From WP: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." This is the point of contention. As it has already been proven, the name has been widely disseminated by the news media. I also agree that WP:BLP must apply, but I am failing to understand why we are specifically ignoring the statement under privacy and applying judgement calls. The policy is pretty clear. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• • There are other statements to consider, as well. For example, in the same section you're quoting, it also says, "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." This would seem to suggest that dissemination by news media is not the sole deciding factor. Also, what you're quoting from is a subsection of Presumption in favor of privacy. Other statements of potential relevance include, "Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so." (My emphasis added.) "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 in original.) This child was the victim of the actions of others, who certainly did not respect his basic human dignity. What his classmates did to him created a notable phenomenon, but he did not choose to be associated with it. Ethical considerations would seem to me to suggest that we should not participate in or prolong his victimization by further disseminating his name, which is not in the least bit essential for documenting this notable meme. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Um, not to say that mocking the kid's video was the right thing for his classmates to do, but he did create the video in the first place. Yes, he was victimized by being mocked, but he chose to create the video that is the subject of the article. But either way, I don't see how simply repeating what numerous other sources have identified as his name causes any further harm. Powers ^T 00:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Surely creating a video for one's private pleasure is a far different thing from putting oneself up for mockery on the internet. I can't see how the fact that he created the video has any bearing whatsoever on the fact that others victimized him by seizing from him his right to control who viewed it and when. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm saying he bears a small measure of responsibility for the existence of the phenomenon. Small, but not negligible. Powers ^T 13:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• Yet another comment. It has been pointed out several times that we should not stoop to the level of cheap tabloids such as the New York Times, and that WP:BLP says that "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." I'd like to point out that the name has indeed appeared in scholarly articles and even in books about cyber-bullying and related topics. One can verify this from searching Google scholar and Google books (and also amazon.com), but I won't post the links because the Holy Inquisition is certain to come and delete them. --Itub (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I see a couple of books--4, when I eliminate the false hit. Did you notice that one of those books evidently only uses the full name in citing us? here. In the actual accessible page, they refer to him by first name only...just as the sources other than Wikipedia that they cite did. That's about as graphic a demonstration for the usefulness of BLP as I can think of. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There are nine books in amazon (eight if you discount the one that cites wikipedia). I really don't understand how this is a "graphic demonstration for the usefulness of BLP". --Itub (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• • That would be in the fact that we are the sole source disseminating the full name in one of the books. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

9 books in addition to every single english language newspaper I can think of (not to mention spanish, french, portuguese,german,russian and I'm pretty sure, just about any other language I try to search in) what more do you want? An entire biography? A TV show? Conveniently focusing on one book, as you did, does not make the other 8 go away. The number of sources before Itub mentioned the books was already overwhelming; this should be the nail in the coffin. 189.104.18.132 (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why we are substituting our own judgement in place of professional journalists and editors who are far more likely to have a good grasp of journalistic ethics than us laypeople. It smacks of nanny state-ism. Wired staff certainly know that their articles are going to be online/accessible/indexed for the foreseeable future and they still included the full name anyway. The other thing I don't get is that by the time he gave the Globe and Mail interview, he fully knew what the reach of the Internet was, and yet he didn't ask for his name to be kept private, or to use a pseudonym, but he did neither of those things. In other words, by his own actions, he (most likely) knew that his name was going to be associated with the video in the public sphere. I guess I don't see why we feel like we need to protect someone who has already disdained any such protection himself. howcheng {chat} 15:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• If you're referring to this, I would take that as a persuasive point, but I'm not sure why you conclude that it's an interview. The article seems to be referring to information found "[i]n the transcripts". Is there additional information or something I'm overlooking that would suggest that he granted them an interview? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm, good point. I assumed he was interviewed because it doesn't say anywhere in the article that he refused to comment on the story or that he could not be reached, as would be customary (for articles in the LA Times, anyway -- perhaps the Globe and Mail doesn't do that). However, I've done some more research and Radar Magazine (March/April 2007) says "Aside from a few brief statements by e-mail in 2003, he has never spoken with reporters." That being the case, the second part of my last statement kind of falls flat. Still, my point about journalistic ethics still stands. howcheng {chat} 18:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, if we go by Wikipedia's article on Journalism ethics and standards, withholding his name seems to be quite within "the spirit of." It says, "This often involves the withholding of certain details from reports such as the names of minor children, crime victims' names or information not materially related to particular news reports release of which might, for example, harm someone's reputation." At the time of the incident, this individual was legally a minor child; he is a crime victim; this information might harm his reputation. It seems that if anything journalistic ethics fell down at those sources that released his name to begin with. A glance at the source for that material in our article, the Society of Professional Journalists, seems to support that reading, particularly in the section called "Minimize Harm." To quote several excerpts, it says "Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects" and "Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy." That doesn't seem to exist here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Maybe you can explain to me why Globe and Mail, Wired, Radar Magazine, Associated Press, the New York Times, and the BBC all published his full name then. howcheng {chat} 19:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Seems to me I gave my opinion on that above, but I don't mind repeating it: "It seems that if anything journalistic ethics fell down at those sources that released his name to begin with." Sometimes that does happen, even at The New York Times. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
        • (EC reply to Moonriddengirl) BLP also states that we should consider publication in scholarly sources, such as, for example, the Mississippi Law Journal [5]. Note that this is a serious article regarding online defamation, so one can hardly consider that its author and publisher are ignorant of ethical considerations regarding online publications—the paper is about such considerations. Finally, it doesn't matter if journalistic considerations "fell down". After all, this never should have happened to begin with, the kid who found the video should have simply respected his classmate's privacy and put it down rather than publishing it virally. But that didn't happen. As to judging journalistic ethics of hundreds of sources, Moonriddengirl, do you actually have the qualifications to do that, or is this just breathtaking arrogance on your part? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
          • If there's breathtaking arrogance here, I don't think it's mine. I'm sorry if my opinion upsets you. I remain entitled to it, regardless of my credentials. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
            • Perhaps I shouldn't have put it in such terms, and for that I do apologize. Still, I would like to know on what basis it is that you believe you know better than the professional journalists who have countless times published the name, the additional professional editors who are well-versed in journalistic ethics and have approved such publication, and even those who publish papers specifically regarding online publication and specifically chose to mention the name. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
              • Thank you. I do appreciate the apology. :) It's the same basis that I believe I have the right to pass opinion on the actions of my government, even though they're presumably much better educated at political science than I am (some of them, anyway): I am a reasonably intelligent human being who can read and make up her own mind. :) When I read their own ethical code, it seems to me it was misapplied when they publicized this young man's name. I do not believe it is essential for telling this story, and I do believe that it's potential to perpetuate harm is greater than its need. (As I noted above, there is already a book out there that uses his name just because we did.) I understand that some feel that the cat is out of the bag and that hence there is no reason to withhold the name. I'm just not of that opinion myself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
                • And believe me, I would be the first to stand up and say that anyone has the right to oppose anything in terms of the right of free speech. And that would certainly include my own opposition to my government, as well as yours. But here, in the context of making a reference work, there is not such a right of opposing reliable sources, not in article space. To include any such "right" would be to validate the position of any POV pusher who believe that they "know better" than the sources on the subject. If someone "knows" the Moon landing was a "hoax", we would validate their position, despite the overwhelming source majority. I cannot see validating "But we KNOW BETTER than our sources!" anywhere without validating it everywhere. How would you answer that? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
                  • By noting that Wikipedia has created an "exceptional circumstances" policy of its own, just as the journalistic ethics code did, in our BLP. I don't consider that evaluating the ethics of including the name under own policies and opinions is the same as questioning the factual accuracy of sources. No one is saying that these sources have gotten his name wrong (that I've noticed; this conversation is sprawling). I do think they erred in judging their own professional code of conduct, but ultimately that's a red herring here. It's our code of conduct we need to consider. It isn't opposing reliable sources to selectively determine what information is necessary and appropriate in making our own, accurate report. I have agreed with some of those above who have said it isn't necessary. I don't think it is, for a full understanding of this phenomenon. As I believe it is unnecessary, I think we are free to allow ethical considerations to take primacy here. I think the ethical choice--given his age at the time of the incident, the violation of his rights, and the media-documented impact this had on him--is to withhold his name. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. Doesn't violate neutrality, verifiability, or original research. Whether it's flattering or not shouldn't matter - Wikipedia documents people's unflattering moments as well, when they're of notability. I don't see any reason why verifiable, encyclopedic material should be deliberately withheld. - Chardish (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)