Talk:867-5309/Jenny

Lawsuit
This addition adds a lawsuit filed by a comedian, stating that someone leaked a woman's phone number.

There are several problems here. The source is the filing. This is a primary source. A primary source, if used carefully, can be used to support a simple, non-controversial fact. In this case, however, it is being cited for facts that are not in the filing.

1) This is a primary source making a controversail claim about a living person. WP:BLP, especially WP:BLPPRIMARY, applies here. "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." This court record cannot be used to say anything about a living person, as is being done here.

2) The paragraph cited says nothing whatsoever about the girlfriend's phone number. It cannot be used as a source to say something about her phone number, as is being done here.

3) The document does not say anything about the song "Jenny", the subject of this article. It cannot be used to say anything about the song. Anything that is not about the song -- such as the claim about the woman's phone number -- does not belong in this article. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. This sort of claim normally needs (at the bare minimum) at least one news article that actually says these things.
 * The policy around this is very strict. If this inappropriate change continues to be made, then we will need to seek page protection.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

continues to restore the section, so far ignoring this discussion. The source cited is a primary source (a WP:BLP issue), does not mention the phone number and has no apparent connection to the song (the topic of this article). (Yes, a random person on reddit does mention the phone number and another random person on reddit does seem to connect it to the song. Those anonymous self-published sources absolutely cannot be used as sources for a BLP.)

Mostly based on the WP:BLP issue (but also because of the refusal to discuss the issue, I am giving the editor a final warning to discuss the issue before restoring the section. If they continue otherwise, I will request a block. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * (from tabmok99) Please assist with the correct way to include mention of the lawsuit. Page 20 of the primary/legal document mentions that part of the lawsuit involves the alleged phone number, but what was actually given out was 867-5309. If need be, please be patient, and I will find a better source that shows the comedians giving out 867-5309 and not someone's actual phone number, as alleged in the lawsuit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabmok99 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This issue involves a contentious claim about a living person. Per WP:BLP, do not restore the section unless/until you have established a consensus to do so. If you restore it again without such a consensus, you will be blocked from editing. If it is restored by other accounts and/or without logging in, we can copy protect the article and, if needed, find any sock puppetry.


 * The court filing is a primary source. It cannot be used as a source for anything about a living person.


 * If we ignore that (which we won't), the next problem is that the source does not mention (let alone discuss) "867-5309". Page 20 says nothing relevant. Previously you said page 21. It mentions only "a phone number".


 * If we ignore that issue as well (we won't), the next problem is that this article is not about the phpne number, it is about a song. The source does not say anything about the song.


 * If we ignore that issue (again, we won't), we come to the issue of WP:WEIGHT: How significant is this to the history of the song? The complete lack of coverage says it is trivial.


 * Finally, the text you have repeatedly added is not supported by even the onesided court fiing.


 * If you should happen to find secondary coverage in independent reliable sources discussing the song and the significance of this suit, feel free to bring it here for discussion. Otherwise, there is simply nothing to include here.


 * If you disagree with my opinions, you can either wait to see if anyone agrees with you and discuss it here or possibly find a way forward at dispute resolution. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to Wikipedia, but would this article satisfy one or more of these points? Even has a picture of the scrap of paper in question. 87.208.255.184 (talk) 10:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Two problems: I'm not sure what "epeak.in" is and their site isn't in a rush to explain. The barrage of pop-ups, pop-overs and other assorted dancing bologna doesn't particularly inspire confidence that it is in any way a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
 * Next is WP:WEIGHT. This article is about the song "867-5309/Jenny". We could, but should not, load up the article with every TV show, film, novel, comic strip, knock knock joke, Internet meme, court case, opera, political speech, billboard, etc. that mentions the song. Why shouldn't we? Because this article is about the song. Some goofball mentioned it in a joke and someone else mentioned the joke in a lawsuit. What does that tell us about the song? Nothing, other than the fact that some goofball mentioned it in a lawsuit. Does it tell us anything else? No, all it says is, "(the number was 867–5309, a pop reference)" and "(again, the closest thing to a proof listed in the complaint is the 867–5309 joke)." The article mentions hundreds of things Wikipedia has articles about. One of them is this song. There is nothing encyclopedic about that. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Mohit kmta
Divmvfkc584@gamil.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.255.250 (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

"Jenny (867-5309" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Jenny (867-5309 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)