Talk:Erin Andrews/Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Erincrop.jpg
Image:Erincrop.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Erinandrews.jpg
Image:Erinandrews.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Her Degree
Did Erin Andrews graduate with a degree in telecommunications (the understanding of how electrical equipment sends messages via certain protocols, and studying things like 8PSK modulation which requires knowledge of physics and calculus), or a degree in communications (linguistics and the study of the origins of speech and words)? Two vastly different fields. Just trying to clarify for certain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.221.33 (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Take it up with the University of Florida. The degree is called Telecommunications, with sub-majors in Management, News and Production. I imagine it was News, but it doesn't change the fact that this is what the degree is called. Just as 'Qwest' and 'Xcel' aren't real words, we are forced into using them.
 * I changed the wikilink that went to the article on telecommunications. If you look at the UF degree description it's clearly a journalism degree. We might be stuck with misleading wording, but that doesn't mean we have to compound it by sending people to an article the misleads them more. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Deadspin
Should we mention how she is worshipped by those losers on deadspin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.163.230 (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Yes we should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.82.248 (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Deadspin mocks Erin Andrews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.229.39 (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

New York Post
I think it is worth a mention in the article that the New York Post has now posted photos from this infamous video. http://snarkfood.com/espn-reporter-erin-andrews-peephole-pictures-published-by-new-york-post/

And then subsequently the Post had its reporters banned from participating in ESPN programming due to the publication of the photos. Has that ever happened before - at least, in such a public way? http://snarkfood.com/espn-bans-new-york-post-reporters-over-erin-andrews-peephole-video-pictures/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeattleEditorGirl (talk • contribs) 19:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

L. A. Vess 20:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeattleEditorGirl (talk • contribs)

Nude Voyeur Video
This is definitely not encyclopedic. Would anyone really miss it if this section disappeared, with maybe a reference to the story by a mainstream news service (AP, Reuters, etc)? I know that a lot of Wikipedia editors are 4chan, Fark, Slashdot, and Something Awful users, as well, but this really isn't the place to be posting about porn videos, where to find them, and whether you'd hit it or not. How about we leave that to those aforementioned web sites, and keep Wikipedia encyclopedic? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The section is probably too long right now, it's length is out of proportion with the incident's role in her overall career, but as this story did get wide coverage in the mainstream press it's notable for at least a mention. It's not really Wikipedia's place to impose supposed journalistic integrity on the press... they ran with it, that made it notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.229.88 (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in sports whatsoever, and I only found out about this woman because of the publicity surrounding the voyeur video. I think my case is a testament to this section's relevance.  So I second your comment. Lothar76 (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Maybe i'm missing something but I don't see anything in the article that's discussing where to find porn, or "whether you'd hit it or not". The section might be a touch long in relation to the rest of the article, but it looks like well referenced account of a very notable event. I'm not seeing anything inappropriate. Do you have a specific complaint?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the 2nd paragraph about the controversy is not needed. Law type!  snype? 02:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the solution is to merge wording about perception and reaction to Sideline reporter? Discussions about the role of female sideline reporters in general are not directly relevant to the Erin Andrews article, but they would seem to have a place in an article on sideline reporters. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's way out of proportion with the rest of the article. I really am not thrilled with the section title either as it almost dignifies it. --B (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good edit too me.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the ONLY thing that she is famous for! I have been watching sports for 30 years or so and never have heard of Erin Andrews until her naked tapes came out on the news and The Pirate Bay!! Can anyone else say that they heard of her BEFORE her nude videos? I'll bet 90% of the people say 'no'. Plus, the only reason why she was on Dancing with the Stars is because she is famous for her naked videos. These videos are the best thing that has happened to her! I'll bet the number of her page views on Wikipedia exploded after this incident, and have stayed pretty high since then, thus all of the interest here on this discussion page.

Admit it - none of you would be here right now even looking at her page or engaged in this discussion but for her naked videos.

What does it mean when some of you complain that this section is too long in compared to the rest of the article? Is it our fault that she is famous for nothing else but being naked? Is it our fault that she has does nothing of note other than being naked on tape? Other than getting hit by a foul ball and being naked, in the last 10 years of her 'career' she has done nothing of note. I say this section should remain and be expended upon as news warrants (such as ESPNs attempt to get $300k from the video guy recently). Republic of Texas (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Espn return
Anyone know when she will be back? That would be good to put in the article. --24.119.32.80 (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation
The section on her ESPN career is a very close paraphrase of her official ESPN bio at http://www.espnmediazone.com/bios/Talent/Andrews_Erin.htm .-- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well when you are discussing a history of a person's life the facts will remain the same regardless as to who is writing them. If a bio is done accurately enough it should be identical on Wikipedia as it is on EPSN or any other site.  Her date of birth, schools attended, employment history, etc., will all be identical in every bio you see. Republic of Texas (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

ESPN Thursday
She does both Thursday and Saturday night college football games. It will not allow me to add that, but someone should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.145.241 (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Andrews
Is that Erin looking on from the left?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Nigelstwin, 5 April 2010
The final sentence of this entry should be adjusted grammatically. It currently reads: "In April 2010 it was revealed that Andrews was receiving email death threats since September 2009. The FBI was notified and security around her was tightened." It should read: "In April 2010 it was revealed that Andrews had been receiving email death threats since September 2009. The FBI was notified and security around her was tightened."

Nigelstwin (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Done Welcome and thanks for the correction. Celestra (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.244.40.251, 6 April 2010
In the discussion about Erin Andrew's privacy invasion incident, the following sentence should be modified: "Supposedly, the woman was curling her hair unclothed while doing squat-like moves in front of the mirror." The comment about "squat-like" moves is certainly not needed for factual reporting, is overly titillating, and and also mostly inaccurate. She apparently picked up several items, including clothing, which may have prompted that comment to an individual overly salacious-minded. The woman has suffered enough embarrassment from the illegal invasion of her privacy, surely those words could be deleted! I suggest changing to: "In the video, the woman was seen curling her hair unclothed in front of the mirror."

70.244.40.251 (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Done Welcome. Wikipedia isn't censored and we couldn't have done this had the sources reported that detail, but none of the sources in that section support that claim. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Uhhhh
Now being an amateur dancer on a tv show is worthy of an "encyclopedia" like this? I think we need to start documenting who's been on Celebrity Who Wants to be a Millionaire? too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.157.245 (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Brunette
I added a comment with a reference (http://bumpshack.com/2009/08/04/erin-andrews-brunette-high-school-photo/) that she is originally a brunette. It was removed with accusations of vandalism on me and threats on my page about blocking my account. Could someone please do some google on that and then jump the gun and bullying please? Its a different matter if you would just prefer her as blonde. 67.154.172.34 (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You have my undivided attention... - 4twenty42o (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You may call it unimportant detail and remove it. But please dont call it vandalism and add warnings on my page because it is easy for you. If you agree please remove them as they do make a difference to my page. 67.154.172.34 (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to interject - I reverted the first edit which at the time was unsourced and pretty irrelevent. The reason you received a level 3 warning was because you have previously received warnings for additions to other pages. I suggest you set up a user account for future edits.Vrenator (talk)
 * This was not vandalism, so please wait until I do vandalism before you raise to the next level. I understand that you have the convenience to do that but please use your authority where it is applicable else it may be classified as bullying. And please be a little objective in your judgements. 67.154.172.34 (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you really look at a couple of lame ass templates as bullying then you got a long road ahead of you my friend. Listen, there are all kinds of people that make Wikipedia work as well as it does and some of those kinds of people are the "bullies" that weed out as much of the crap that people randomly toss in, as they can, hour after hour. Its not personal, its not even unfriendly. Its blunt and to the point. Stop what you are doing. Maybe you did something wrong. Maybe we made a mistake. But most importantly stop what you are doing... You did not do that. So you got a couple templates.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What about freedom of speech. If I belive that people should know that she is not a natural blond which she does look like, why should I not write about it so other people like me who would be surprised by this would know about it. Ok I got a couple of templates before but this does not qualify as a template, so I would not stop writing things where they do make sense for the sake of fear. 67.154.172.34 (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with 4twenty42o - also you have had numerous edits reverted hence all the warnings - again why don't you set up a user account, read the introduction to editing and do some constructive editing.Vrenator (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explaination, can you please now take off the warnings if you believe not warranted for this particular case? I do a lot of constructive editing as well. I also have an account but it takes more time to log in. 67.154.172.34 (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

'Undue weight' concern
This is the ONLY thing that she is famous for! I have been watching sports for 30 years or so and never have heard of Erin Andrews until her naked tapes came out on the news and The Pirate Bay!! Can anyone else say that they heard of her BEFORE her nude videos? I'll bet 90% of the people say 'no'. Plus, the only reason why she was on Dancing with the Stars is because she is famous for her naked videos. These videos are the best thing that has happened to her! I'll bet the number of her page views on Wikipedia exploded after this incident, and have stayed pretty high since then, thus all of the interest here on this discussion page.

Admit it - none of you would be here right now even looking at her page or engaged in this discussion but for her naked videos.

What does it mean when some of you complain that this section is too long in compared to the rest of the article? Is it our fault that she is famous for nothing else but being naked? Is it our fault that she has does nothing of note other than being naked on tape? Other than getting hit by a foul ball and being naked, in the last 10 years of her 'career' she has done nothing of note. I say this section should remain and be expended upon as news warrants (such as ESPNs attempt to get $300k from the video guy recently). Republic of Texas (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A long rambling rant is a lot less likely to be seriously considered than a concise concrete proposal for additional content.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cube lurker. A long rambling rant is going to turn people off and they will only read a bit and get bored. Something short, concise and to the point will get more people to read more of the whole article. Also, Republic, I did know who she was before this incident. I guess its because I watch NCAA football. The video was not the reason she was on DWTS, she is well known amongst NCAA/football people and a lot of other sports fans.-- Navy Blue84  23:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly. ESPN had her reporting extensively and prominently well before the video, which amounts to a minor incident in her life and career. -Phoenixrod (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * While I am sure that people who are 'into' college sports will know her name, what about the rest of us? The non-sports people - especially females?  While I am not female, I am not into college sports at all (which seemed to be her main venue).  That is who I am referring to - all of us non-sports people.  I am not the only one who feels this way.  There have been countless news articles on the subject and most of the people feel that without these naked tapes the vast majority of people would not have heard of her.  They say in Hollywood that there is no such thing as bad publicity.Republic of Texas (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So just because in your mind, and maybe a handfull of other people, she is only famous because of her voyeur sex tape, that her whole article on her whole life should be about 1 thing? She is 32 and has done a lot in her life. Also she has covered more then just NCAA sports, she has covered at one time or another just about every sporting type that ESPN covers. Like phoenixrod said this is a single incident in her life, not sure i agree with minor, but is not life altering either. Doesn't deserve a huge drawn out rambling section that repeats itself over and over. A quick question, how many unique articles are there, by unique I mean have facts that are not in others? I will bet that it is not many. While there maybe a ton of articles and press coverage, they all say the same thing, just different words.-- Navy Blue84  18:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Considering that she is professionally a sports reporter, of course we should look to her notability in that field. I don't really see how a voyeuristic tape of her remotely outweighs her entire professional life. No offense intended, Republic of Texas, but your argument appears to boil down to "I don't know much about her, so what I do know should be prominent." That's not how an encyclopedia works. In any case, what matters is what is verifiable in reliable sources. You'd be hard pressed to find a reputable writer who focuses on the voyeur tape without mentioning her career. -Phoenixrod (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If all the articles were accurate, one would hope that they would be basically identical. The timelines, people and places involved, and the facts of the situation are not something that should change from one news outlet to another.


 * Actually, here is proof positive that she is only famous for being naked. According to google trends, she went from basically nothing to the 12th most searched for person on the internet after those videos came to light last year.  http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends?q=erin+andrews+peephole+tape&date=2009-7-23&sa=X  Republic of Texas (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Republic of Texas, did you know who Britney Spears was before her sex tape? Or Mindy McCreedy? This situation is very much the same as there's. Famous for something else, then someone puts a sex tape of them out there and they are even more well known. Most of the articles on this one incident are the same stuff over and over, just worded differently (obviously). Like I said before, people want the facts in a short and concise manner. Having a long rambling section will turn people off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navy blue84 (talk • contribs) 31 July 2010


 * Britney Spears never made a sex tape (her ex-husband & some photoguy supposedly had one, but never released it). As for Mindy, no, I never heard of her until her drug scandal & sex tape.Republic of Texas (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait, RoT, you are arguing that when news of a "scandal" broke, people searched for it? Shocking! (Sorry, couldn't resist.)


 * That doesn't mean anything in the long term, which is what an encyclopedia is all about. (See WP:NOTNEWS.) Google Trends isn't relevant to core Wikipedia policies. The peephole incident can certainly be mentioned, but she's plenty notable for other things, and she was before the video as well. I think the article's lead does a fine job encapsulating why she is notable to a wide audience. If she were truly not notable before the 2009 peephole video, as you claim, then she wouldn't have had a Wikipedia article since 2006.


 * On another note, I am concerned that you seem to think that "facts" are a simple set of things that will be the same in every article about a person's life. Articles can take different perspectives: e.g., focusing on human interest, op/ed angles, an interview, professional accomplishments, or invasions of personal privacy. I would expect that for Erin Andrews, TMZ would report in a way quite different from ESPN or the Associated Press. You seem to be a new editor. Can we can point you to some other policies and guidelines? I'm not trying to brush you off here, but I think you may genuinely be missing something about the goals of Wikipedia. -Phoenixrod (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * To me, reading about their sex tapes and such is quite interesting. My life is pretty boring in comparison (get up, eat, go to work, get home, watch tv, sleep, repeat).  No drug scandals, sex tapes, arrests / jail sentences, drunken behavior or anything else.  Guess I won't be on the Jersey Shores, either.  ;)


 * Being notable, and being NOTABLE, are two different things. In my own right, I, too, would qualify for a wikipedia article under Wiki guidelines.  I am a Lt. Col. who has been involved & responsible for many notable and high-profile U.S. Army criminal investigations, I have published books on National Security investigations and Anti-Terrorism and the like, as well as my war record in Iraq, Afganistan, Panama, and other places.  All of that stuff, medals and all, would be worth maybe three or four inches of space.  But if there was a sex tape out there, my name would be known to MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of people all over the U.S. who, before, had never heard of me.


 * A 2008 United Nations University survey of 130,000 Wikipedia users exposes a surprising profile: the average age of a contributor is 26.8 years (10 years younger than the average age of the general population in ‘more developed’ countries), 87% are male, and at least 46% are not university educated. Even with this relatively young age and education profile, 70-90% of contributors self-identify as “experts”.http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/first-preliminary-results-from-unu-merit-survey-of-wikipedia-readers-and-contributors-available/ Since I try to view the articles as they would be seen by someone NOT a part of this demographic, I try to include information relevant to them.  If these non-demographic members are searching for Erin Andrews, why do you think that is?  They don't care about her sportscasting "career" or that she once worked for "the Sunshine Network."  They want to know what's up with the naked tapes, and the who, what, when, where, why & how of the matter.


 * We have got to remember - the people who edit Wikipedia are NOT the people who use Wikipedia. And if we wish to remain relevant and interesting, we must keep the non-user demographic in mind. Republic of Texas (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Republic of Texas, you must also follow WP:BLP. The very first part is on tone and it says "BLPs should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.". Having a really long section on one incident in her life is overstatement. I would seggest reading all of WP:BLP as well as WP:MOS, they will help to understand Phoenixrod's and my points of view here.-- Navy Blue84  17:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And my viewpoint as well, since I think I am the one who tagged it. In the overview of her life and accomplishments and impact, this is a blip; no matter how much tabloid coverage or puriant interest is involved.Active Banana (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "And if we wish to remain ... interesting" Wikipedia is WP:NOT a gossip tabloid pandering to purient interests to get the greatest number of readers. " And if we wish to remain relevant" as an encyclopedia we will need to maintain strict focus on reliable sources and NPOV and removal of Fancruft.
 * And looking more closely the reason I tagged it was because it is such an intricate "THIS happened and then THIS happened and then THIS happened" when the detials could be summarized into an overview that still covers what a general reader would need to know about the topic and those who want that detail can go to the sources. Active Banana (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The length of this section is completely appropriate given that numerous lawsuits are involved, and they include various parties such as ESPN, Marriott, and Radisson. The FBI investigated the claims. Credible media outlets have reported it (AP, USA Today, CBS, NBC, ESPN, etc). As a result, Erin Andrews has become the subject of a larger conversation about how we view sports journalists (as objects of lust, etc.) in society. If this conversation takes place in the media, it's our job to report it as an encyclopedia.Guiltlessgecko (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No comments in the past 3 weeks. This issue appears to be resolved. Removing undue weight concerns. Guiltlessgecko (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I had the opposite impression: no convincing argument for retaining so much detail about a relatively minor event. -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Active Banana just pruned the section a bit, which seems to me to be an improvement. Perhaps the undue weight concerns could be alleviated by adding to the rest of her article. -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The valid encyclopedic content could probably be condensed more, if the right sources are out there: "videos were taken of her in a hotel room and posted on the web. they recieved much media attention before they were removed the next day. the man who took them was arrested, convicted and is serving X time. She gave 1 interview on Oprah stating "quote". She has filed a lawsuit and is involved with senate actions for anti stalking laws."  Active  Banana   (  bananaphone  21:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The videos have NEVER been removed from the internet. They are still out there in case anyone else wants to donwload them.  See, e.g., http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5009296/Erin_Andrews_ESPN_reporter_nude_for_full_5_minutes_peephole.  I have seen and 'enjoyed' the videos myself. Republic of Texas (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed that link from the article for a couple reasons. The first reason is, Erin Andrews has requested the video be taken down and not distributed. The second is, The Pirate Bay hosts mostly illegal stuff (ie. the Erin Andrews video). I don't see any necessary reason to include the link. If there is consensus other ways then it can be re-added.-- Navy Blue84  00:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It saddens me that there's even a consideration to have it re-added, as common sense would dictate the video stay out. However, if you need policy, torrents cannot be used as references and the video is not public domain and therefore any link to it is a copyright violation. The video, taken illegally, has led to so many interviews in which this woman talks about the violation of it, the devastating mental affectation, and occupational strife and yet someone here actually feels that it's a good thing to add it to the article? I'm going to be honest - it's not. Clamshell Deathtrap (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree about that. I wasn't even thinking about copy right issues, but more or less the legality of the site that was used as a ref. I agree it should not be added, and did not know about the use of torrents not being allowed. Clamshell, can you point me to the policy where it states that, so I know and can read it for future reference? Thanks-- Navy Blue84  01:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A torrent cannot be used as a reference because it is not a WP:RS. Here we have a case where the use of the torrent only proves that the video exists. When you reference something with a newspaper article, one only need read the article. A torrent is just a data stream. In effect, a person would have to download a torrent client, download the actual torrent, watch the movie, and even then it's not a reliable source because you can't exactly say "X happened in the movie Casablanca" and use the movie itself as a reference. You need a 3rd party reference to do that for you. I'm not sure that policy specifically excludes a torrent, but I suppose the better question would be is there any case in which a torrent could be useful in an article? For that I would have to say no. They are only useful to share media via the internet but are not sources of information, regardless of the content. Clamshell Deathtrap (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The ONLY person who has copyright to the video is the guy that took it - not the naked girl in it, and he is in jail. And since the guy released it into the public domain by posting it online for free, he has waived any legal claim to it.  At least that is what they taught me when I was in law school.  Whether or not Erin Andrews wants it online or not makes no difference as she is not the owner of the video.  Additionally, The Pirate Bay is not illegal. It does not host any files; thus, it is protected under US Copyright law (which I am assuming you are referring to).  At the most, they could possibly - possibly - be guilty of contributory infringement.  However, in Sony v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984), a case brought by the movie industry against the Sony Betamax VCR, the Supreme Court found that contributory infringement liability could not reach the manufacturer of a device that is "capable of substantial noninfringing use."  Only the act of downloading a pirated movie (which is done by the individual) is illegal, and those videos come from individuals on the P2P network - not the Pirate Bay. if that is your only reason for taking the link out, then I shall replace it.  FYI - I think it is a good thing to add this to the article.  She has made plenty of money off her naked videos and for her to be crying and claiming any mental issues is bogus.  The only reason why she is famous is because she made those naked videos.


 * It should also be pointed out that The Pirate Bay has never been found 'guilty' of anything in any U.S. court, be it state or federal. If you are going to be making legal claims please at least have some knowledge of the law first. Republic of Texas (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have just read WP:RS and could find nothing that prohibited the use of a torrent for reference. In fact, the policy specifically states: The following specific examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive.  Thus, it is clear that other types of sources may be used.  Since the torrent itself is proof positive that the video was never taken down or removed from the internet, I see no reason why it cannot be used as a source. Republic of Texas (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Then try BLP again. I quote from Biographies_of_living_persons: "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from 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." While Andrews is notable for her career, linking to a peephole video taken without her consent is a flagrant violation of BLP. BLPs are not to be taken lightly. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * After reading that cite you provided, you are correct. The only reason why I put the torrent link there to begin with was because someone had come along and changed the article and said that the videos had been removed from the internet.  So I put the link there to show that is not the case.  So what about changing the language while still getting the point across?  Erin Andrews does not control the internets and her video is widely available to anyone who wants to check it out. Republic of Texas (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure which law class you took but posting online doesn't release anything into the public domain. Just as the words that I am typing right now are not released into the public domain. Maybe someone at Commons can clear up the misconception. In addition, common sense could have been exercised to avoid any of this policy talk. Yes, Adobe Photoshop exists. Does the article need a link to the torrent to prove it? The man was convicted for taking the video. Do you not wonder about the liability of providing a link to the illegal video? All it would take is one of her lawyers to assert that Wikipedia was providing a link to the torrent and for someone who went to law school, I would think you would understand the legal ramifications. Clamshell Deathtrap (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Republic of Texas, if you think it should be added then fine that is your opinion. However there is no consensus here for it to be added. If you would like more clarification if a torrent can be used then I suggest going to the RS noticeboard and asking there. As for torrent sites being illegal, what about all the torrent sites that have been shut down recently? The guy in jail has no right to the video, but Erin Andrews does, she got the rights in court when she won and had the video blocked. We need to follow WP:BLP and that is all we are trying to do here.-- Navy Blue84  16:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure the point could be re-worded, Republic of Texas. But with BLP in mind, we don't want to encourage people to look for the video, do we? While it's true that "Erin Andrews does not control the internets and her video is widely available to anyone who wants to check it out", Wikipedia is under no obligation to help people check it out. -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Erin Andrews never 'won' anything in court against this guy. It was the State (the u.s. govt) that prosecuted the guy & "won", not Erin Andrews.  I don't know who you claim she had blocked from showing the video.  The video itself is not illegal to download, to see, or to have.  The only person who broke the law here was the guy that allegedly made the video.  Just like if I watch a video of somemore getting murdered, I am not guilty of murder or anything else.  You are confusing morality with what is legal under the law.  Since the video itself is not illegal to see, have, or hold, there can be no liability for linking to it.  Your example, Clamshell, of the pirated copy of Adobe is different since it is illegal to have a pirated copy of software.  When you post something online with the intention of giving it away, not selling it, then that is what is means - you gave it away.  So when I post a naked video that I made online for people do download for free, I cannot claim that I own it when I have already given it away.  Posting something online is no different than walking around your neighborhood and handing out gifts to people, (assuming that people would want to see you naked).  When you give someone that DVD than it becomes a 'gift' and the person who receives the gift now owns the gift (such as with Christmas presents & birthdays).  While it is true that Erin has filed some lawsuits over the video, the lawsuits have been against the hotels where this stuff happened at (for invasion of privacy & related torts) and against the guy who made the naked videos.http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07/erin-andrews-files-lawsuit.html.  In my personal opinion, I think that Erin Andrews is a whore and I still believe that she was behind this somehow.  She has made a ton of money off of this and it is the only reason why people even know who she is. Republic of Texas (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You just made the case I was making RoT. The video is illegal, one way or the other. Having a link to the video or to a download of the video, could mean legal trouble for Wikipedia. None the less, there is no real need for there to be a link to the video or a torrent to download it. Just because something is posted online, does not make it public domain. Anything said on Wikipedia is because of the copyright license that is used. The only way something can be public domain is if there is an appropriate GFDL license.-- Navy Blue84  23:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OMG - don't you know how to read? I did not make the case that the video is illegal!  I specifically and repeatedly stated that the video is NOT illegal!!!!!  While I mentioned that she is filing lawsuits against the hotels, that has nothing to do with whether or not the video is legal or illegal.  If you tape naked pictures of me and put them on the internet and your mom downloads them, how is her possession of the naked video of me illegal?  Yes, I could sue you.  But I cannot sue the person who downloads for free off of the internet.  So your mom is safe.  Before you start trying to hand out legal advice or opinions, please know and study the law.


 * Just curious, what law school did you go to, Navy Blue? When it comes to the public domain, there is no catch. If a book, song, movie or artwork is in the public domain, then it is not protected by intellectual property laws (such as copyright, trademark or patent law) --which means it's free for you to use without permission. As a general rule, most works enter the public domain because of old age. This includes any work published in the United States before 1923. Another large block of works are in the public domain because they were published before 1964 and copyright was not renewed. (Renewal was a requirement for works published before 1978.) A smaller group of works fell into the public domain because they were published without copyright notice (copyright notice was necessary for works published in the United States before March 1, 1989). Some works are in the public domain because the owner has indicated a desire to give them to the public without copyright protection - which is what happened with the Erin Andrews video.  Or when I posted on the internet for free that naked video of myself that your mom downloaded. Republic of Texas (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * RoT, remember to keep it civil!! I know how to read, I have a couple university degrees. The video is an invasion of her privacy (a crime) and therefore is illegal. I am not saying that is what you said, it is what I am saying. Taking pictures/video of someone is a CRIME (I should know, I am a cop). Just because the guy who taped it released it, doesn't mean its public domain, esp. while it is the center of an ongoing legal battle.

We will just have to agree to disagree here. The video, a link to it or a link to a torrent of the video is not needed or helpful to the article. If someone wants to keep there personal life private they have the right to that. As far as I am concerned this issue is closed. There is a consensus not to put it in the article. I am done with this issue.-- Navy Blue84  13:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Erincrop.jpg
Image:Erincrop.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Erinandrews.jpg
Image:Erinandrews.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Her Degree
Did Erin Andrews graduate with a degree in telecommunications (the understanding of how electrical equipment sends messages via certain protocols, and studying things like 8PSK modulation which requires knowledge of physics and calculus), or a degree in communications (linguistics and the study of the origins of speech and words)? Two vastly different fields. Just trying to clarify for certain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.221.33 (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Take it up with the University of Florida. The degree is called Telecommunications, with sub-majors in Management, News and Production. I imagine it was News, but it doesn't change the fact that this is what the degree is called. Just as 'Qwest' and 'Xcel' aren't real words, we are forced into using them.
 * I changed the wikilink that went to the article on telecommunications. If you look at the UF degree description it's clearly a journalism degree. We might be stuck with misleading wording, but that doesn't mean we have to compound it by sending people to an article the misleads them more. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Deadspin
Should we mention how she is worshipped by those losers on deadspin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.163.230 (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Yes we should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.82.248 (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Deadspin mocks Erin Andrews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.229.39 (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

New York Post
I think it is worth a mention in the article that the New York Post has now posted photos from this infamous video. http://snarkfood.com/espn-reporter-erin-andrews-peephole-pictures-published-by-new-york-post/

And then subsequently the Post had its reporters banned from participating in ESPN programming due to the publication of the photos. Has that ever happened before - at least, in such a public way? http://snarkfood.com/espn-bans-new-york-post-reporters-over-erin-andrews-peephole-video-pictures/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeattleEditorGirl (talk • contribs) 19:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

L. A. Vess 20:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeattleEditorGirl (talk • contribs)

Nude Voyeur Video
This is definitely not encyclopedic. Would anyone really miss it if this section disappeared, with maybe a reference to the story by a mainstream news service (AP, Reuters, etc)? I know that a lot of Wikipedia editors are 4chan, Fark, Slashdot, and Something Awful users, as well, but this really isn't the place to be posting about porn videos, where to find them, and whether you'd hit it or not. How about we leave that to those aforementioned web sites, and keep Wikipedia encyclopedic? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The section is probably too long right now, it's length is out of proportion with the incident's role in her overall career, but as this story did get wide coverage in the mainstream press it's notable for at least a mention. It's not really Wikipedia's place to impose supposed journalistic integrity on the press... they ran with it, that made it notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.229.88 (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in sports whatsoever, and I only found out about this woman because of the publicity surrounding the voyeur video. I think my case is a testament to this section's relevance.  So I second your comment. Lothar76 (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Maybe i'm missing something but I don't see anything in the article that's discussing where to find porn, or "whether you'd hit it or not". The section might be a touch long in relation to the rest of the article, but it looks like well referenced account of a very notable event. I'm not seeing anything inappropriate. Do you have a specific complaint?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the 2nd paragraph about the controversy is not needed. Law type!  snype? 02:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the solution is to merge wording about perception and reaction to Sideline reporter? Discussions about the role of female sideline reporters in general are not directly relevant to the Erin Andrews article, but they would seem to have a place in an article on sideline reporters. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's way out of proportion with the rest of the article. I really am not thrilled with the section title either as it almost dignifies it. --B (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good edit too me.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the ONLY thing that she is famous for! I have been watching sports for 30 years or so and never have heard of Erin Andrews until her naked tapes came out on the news and The Pirate Bay!! Can anyone else say that they heard of her BEFORE her nude videos? I'll bet 90% of the people say 'no'. Plus, the only reason why she was on Dancing with the Stars is because she is famous for her naked videos. These videos are the best thing that has happened to her! I'll bet the number of her page views on Wikipedia exploded after this incident, and have stayed pretty high since then, thus all of the interest here on this discussion page.

Admit it - none of you would be here right now even looking at her page or engaged in this discussion but for her naked videos.

What does it mean when some of you complain that this section is too long in compared to the rest of the article? Is it our fault that she is famous for nothing else but being naked? Is it our fault that she has does nothing of note other than being naked on tape? Other than getting hit by a foul ball and being naked, in the last 10 years of her 'career' she has done nothing of note. I say this section should remain and be expended upon as news warrants (such as ESPNs attempt to get $300k from the video guy recently). Republic of Texas (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Espn return
Anyone know when she will be back? That would be good to put in the article. --24.119.32.80 (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation
The section on her ESPN career is a very close paraphrase of her official ESPN bio at http://www.espnmediazone.com/bios/Talent/Andrews_Erin.htm .-- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well when you are discussing a history of a person's life the facts will remain the same regardless as to who is writing them. If a bio is done accurately enough it should be identical on Wikipedia as it is on EPSN or any other site.  Her date of birth, schools attended, employment history, etc., will all be identical in every bio you see. Republic of Texas (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

ESPN Thursday
She does both Thursday and Saturday night college football games. It will not allow me to add that, but someone should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.145.241 (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Andrews
Is that Erin looking on from the left?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Nigelstwin, 5 April 2010
The final sentence of this entry should be adjusted grammatically. It currently reads: "In April 2010 it was revealed that Andrews was receiving email death threats since September 2009. The FBI was notified and security around her was tightened." It should read: "In April 2010 it was revealed that Andrews had been receiving email death threats since September 2009. The FBI was notified and security around her was tightened."

Nigelstwin (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Done Welcome and thanks for the correction. Celestra (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.244.40.251, 6 April 2010
In the discussion about Erin Andrew's privacy invasion incident, the following sentence should be modified: "Supposedly, the woman was curling her hair unclothed while doing squat-like moves in front of the mirror." The comment about "squat-like" moves is certainly not needed for factual reporting, is overly titillating, and and also mostly inaccurate. She apparently picked up several items, including clothing, which may have prompted that comment to an individual overly salacious-minded. The woman has suffered enough embarrassment from the illegal invasion of her privacy, surely those words could be deleted! I suggest changing to: "In the video, the woman was seen curling her hair unclothed in front of the mirror."

70.244.40.251 (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Done Welcome. Wikipedia isn't censored and we couldn't have done this had the sources reported that detail, but none of the sources in that section support that claim. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Brunette
I added a comment with a reference (http://bumpshack.com/2009/08/04/erin-andrews-brunette-high-school-photo/) that she is originally a brunette. It was removed with accusations of vandalism on me and threats on my page about blocking my account. Could someone please do some google on that and then jump the gun and bullying please? Its a different matter if you would just prefer her as blonde. 67.154.172.34 (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You have my undivided attention... - 4twenty42o (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You may call it unimportant detail and remove it. But please dont call it vandalism and add warnings on my page because it is easy for you. If you agree please remove them as they do make a difference to my page. 67.154.172.34 (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to interject - I reverted the first edit which at the time was unsourced and pretty irrelevent. The reason you received a level 3 warning was because you have previously received warnings for additions to other pages. I suggest you set up a user account for future edits.Vrenator (talk)
 * This was not vandalism, so please wait until I do vandalism before you raise to the next level. I understand that you have the convenience to do that but please use your authority where it is applicable else it may be classified as bullying. And please be a little objective in your judgements. 67.154.172.34 (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you really look at a couple of lame ass templates as bullying then you got a long road ahead of you my friend. Listen, there are all kinds of people that make Wikipedia work as well as it does and some of those kinds of people are the "bullies" that weed out as much of the crap that people randomly toss in, as they can, hour after hour. Its not personal, its not even unfriendly. Its blunt and to the point. Stop what you are doing. Maybe you did something wrong. Maybe we made a mistake. But most importantly stop what you are doing... You did not do that. So you got a couple templates.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What about freedom of speech. If I belive that people should know that she is not a natural blond which she does look like, why should I not write about it so other people like me who would be surprised by this would know about it. Ok I got a couple of templates before but this does not qualify as a template, so I would not stop writing things where they do make sense for the sake of fear. 67.154.172.34 (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with 4twenty42o - also you have had numerous edits reverted hence all the warnings - again why don't you set up a user account, read the introduction to editing and do some constructive editing.Vrenator (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explaination, can you please now take off the warnings if you believe not warranted for this particular case? I do a lot of constructive editing as well. I also have an account but it takes more time to log in. 67.154.172.34 (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

'Undue weight' concern
This is the ONLY thing that she is famous for! I have been watching sports for 30 years or so and never have heard of Erin Andrews until her naked tapes came out on the news and The Pirate Bay!! Can anyone else say that they heard of her BEFORE her nude videos? I'll bet 90% of the people say 'no'. Plus, the only reason why she was on Dancing with the Stars is because she is famous for her naked videos. These videos are the best thing that has happened to her! I'll bet the number of her page views on Wikipedia exploded after this incident, and have stayed pretty high since then, thus all of the interest here on this discussion page.

Admit it - none of you would be here right now even looking at her page or engaged in this discussion but for her naked videos.

What does it mean when some of you complain that this section is too long in compared to the rest of the article? Is it our fault that she is famous for nothing else but being naked? Is it our fault that she has does nothing of note other than being naked on tape? Other than getting hit by a foul ball and being naked, in the last 10 years of her 'career' she has done nothing of note. I say this section should remain and be expended upon as news warrants (such as ESPNs attempt to get $300k from the video guy recently). Republic of Texas (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A long rambling rant is a lot less likely to be seriously considered than a concise concrete proposal for additional content.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cube lurker. A long rambling rant is going to turn people off and they will only read a bit and get bored. Something short, concise and to the point will get more people to read more of the whole article. Also, Republic, I did know who she was before this incident. I guess its because I watch NCAA football. The video was not the reason she was on DWTS, she is well known amongst NCAA/football people and a lot of other sports fans.-- Navy Blue84  23:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly. ESPN had her reporting extensively and prominently well before the video, which amounts to a minor incident in her life and career. -Phoenixrod (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * While I am sure that people who are 'into' college sports will know her name, what about the rest of us? The non-sports people - especially females?  While I am not female, I am not into college sports at all (which seemed to be her main venue).  That is who I am referring to - all of us non-sports people.  I am not the only one who feels this way.  There have been countless news articles on the subject and most of the people feel that without these naked tapes the vast majority of people would not have heard of her.  They say in Hollywood that there is no such thing as bad publicity.Republic of Texas (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So just because in your mind, and maybe a handfull of other people, she is only famous because of her voyeur sex tape, that her whole article on her whole life should be about 1 thing? She is 32 and has done a lot in her life. Also she has covered more then just NCAA sports, she has covered at one time or another just about every sporting type that ESPN covers. Like phoenixrod said this is a single incident in her life, not sure i agree with minor, but is not life altering either. Doesn't deserve a huge drawn out rambling section that repeats itself over and over. A quick question, how many unique articles are there, by unique I mean have facts that are not in others? I will bet that it is not many. While there maybe a ton of articles and press coverage, they all say the same thing, just different words.-- Navy Blue84  18:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Considering that she is professionally a sports reporter, of course we should look to her notability in that field. I don't really see how a voyeuristic tape of her remotely outweighs her entire professional life. No offense intended, Republic of Texas, but your argument appears to boil down to "I don't know much about her, so what I do know should be prominent." That's not how an encyclopedia works. In any case, what matters is what is verifiable in reliable sources. You'd be hard pressed to find a reputable writer who focuses on the voyeur tape without mentioning her career. -Phoenixrod (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If all the articles were accurate, one would hope that they would be basically identical. The timelines, people and places involved, and the facts of the situation are not something that should change from one news outlet to another.


 * Actually, here is proof positive that she is only famous for being naked. According to google trends, she went from basically nothing to the 12th most searched for person on the internet after those videos came to light last year.  http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends?q=erin+andrews+peephole+tape&date=2009-7-23&sa=X  Republic of Texas (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Republic of Texas, did you know who Britney Spears was before her sex tape? Or Mindy McCreedy? This situation is very much the same as there's. Famous for something else, then someone puts a sex tape of them out there and they are even more well known. Most of the articles on this one incident are the same stuff over and over, just worded differently (obviously). Like I said before, people want the facts in a short and concise manner. Having a long rambling section will turn people off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navy blue84 (talk • contribs) 31 July 2010


 * Britney Spears never made a sex tape (her ex-husband & some photoguy supposedly had one, but never released it). As for Mindy, no, I never heard of her until her drug scandal & sex tape.Republic of Texas (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait, RoT, you are arguing that when news of a "scandal" broke, people searched for it? Shocking! (Sorry, couldn't resist.)


 * That doesn't mean anything in the long term, which is what an encyclopedia is all about. (See WP:NOTNEWS.) Google Trends isn't relevant to core Wikipedia policies. The peephole incident can certainly be mentioned, but she's plenty notable for other things, and she was before the video as well. I think the article's lead does a fine job encapsulating why she is notable to a wide audience. If she were truly not notable before the 2009 peephole video, as you claim, then she wouldn't have had a Wikipedia article since 2006.


 * On another note, I am concerned that you seem to think that "facts" are a simple set of things that will be the same in every article about a person's life. Articles can take different perspectives: e.g., focusing on human interest, op/ed angles, an interview, professional accomplishments, or invasions of personal privacy. I would expect that for Erin Andrews, TMZ would report in a way quite different from ESPN or the Associated Press. You seem to be a new editor. Can we can point you to some other policies and guidelines? I'm not trying to brush you off here, but I think you may genuinely be missing something about the goals of Wikipedia. -Phoenixrod (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * To me, reading about their sex tapes and such is quite interesting. My life is pretty boring in comparison (get up, eat, go to work, get home, watch tv, sleep, repeat).  No drug scandals, sex tapes, arrests / jail sentences, drunken behavior or anything else.  Guess I won't be on the Jersey Shores, either.  ;)


 * Being notable, and being NOTABLE, are two different things. In my own right, I, too, would qualify for a wikipedia article under Wiki guidelines.  I am a Lt. Col. who has been involved & responsible for many notable and high-profile U.S. Army criminal investigations, I have published books on National Security investigations and Anti-Terrorism and the like, as well as my war record in Iraq, Afganistan, Panama, and other places.  All of that stuff, medals and all, would be worth maybe three or four inches of space.  But if there was a sex tape out there, my name would be known to MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of people all over the U.S. who, before, had never heard of me.


 * A 2008 United Nations University survey of 130,000 Wikipedia users exposes a surprising profile: the average age of a contributor is 26.8 years (10 years younger than the average age of the general population in ‘more developed’ countries), 87% are male, and at least 46% are not university educated. Even with this relatively young age and education profile, 70-90% of contributors self-identify as “experts”.http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/first-preliminary-results-from-unu-merit-survey-of-wikipedia-readers-and-contributors-available/ Since I try to view the articles as they would be seen by someone NOT a part of this demographic, I try to include information relevant to them.  If these non-demographic members are searching for Erin Andrews, why do you think that is?  They don't care about her sportscasting "career" or that she once worked for "the Sunshine Network."  They want to know what's up with the naked tapes, and the who, what, when, where, why & how of the matter.


 * We have got to remember - the people who edit Wikipedia are NOT the people who use Wikipedia. And if we wish to remain relevant and interesting, we must keep the non-user demographic in mind. Republic of Texas (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Republic of Texas, you must also follow WP:BLP. The very first part is on tone and it says "BLPs should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.". Having a really long section on one incident in her life is overstatement. I would seggest reading all of WP:BLP as well as WP:MOS, they will help to understand Phoenixrod's and my points of view here.-- Navy Blue84  17:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And my viewpoint as well, since I think I am the one who tagged it. In the overview of her life and accomplishments and impact, this is a blip; no matter how much tabloid coverage or puriant interest is involved.Active Banana (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "And if we wish to remain ... interesting" Wikipedia is WP:NOT a gossip tabloid pandering to purient interests to get the greatest number of readers. " And if we wish to remain relevant" as an encyclopedia we will need to maintain strict focus on reliable sources and NPOV and removal of Fancruft.
 * And looking more closely the reason I tagged it was because it is such an intricate "THIS happened and then THIS happened and then THIS happened" when the detials could be summarized into an overview that still covers what a general reader would need to know about the topic and those who want that detail can go to the sources. Active Banana (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The length of this section is completely appropriate given that numerous lawsuits are involved, and they include various parties such as ESPN, Marriott, and Radisson. The FBI investigated the claims. Credible media outlets have reported it (AP, USA Today, CBS, NBC, ESPN, etc). As a result, Erin Andrews has become the subject of a larger conversation about how we view sports journalists (as objects of lust, etc.) in society. If this conversation takes place in the media, it's our job to report it as an encyclopedia.Guiltlessgecko (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No comments in the past 3 weeks. This issue appears to be resolved. Removing undue weight concerns. Guiltlessgecko (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I had the opposite impression: no convincing argument for retaining so much detail about a relatively minor event. -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Active Banana just pruned the section a bit, which seems to me to be an improvement. Perhaps the undue weight concerns could be alleviated by adding to the rest of her article. -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The valid encyclopedic content could probably be condensed more, if the right sources are out there: "videos were taken of her in a hotel room and posted on the web. they recieved much media attention before they were removed the next day. the man who took them was arrested, convicted and is serving X time. She gave 1 interview on Oprah stating "quote". She has filed a lawsuit and is involved with senate actions for anti stalking laws."  Active  Banana   (  bananaphone  21:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The videos have NEVER been removed from the internet. They are still out there in case anyone else wants to donwload them.  See, e.g., http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5009296/Erin_Andrews_ESPN_reporter_nude_for_full_5_minutes_peephole.  I have seen and 'enjoyed' the videos myself. Republic of Texas (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed that link from the article for a couple reasons. The first reason is, Erin Andrews has requested the video be taken down and not distributed. The second is, The Pirate Bay hosts mostly illegal stuff (ie. the Erin Andrews video). I don't see any necessary reason to include the link. If there is consensus other ways then it can be re-added.-- Navy Blue84  00:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It saddens me that there's even a consideration to have it re-added, as common sense would dictate the video stay out. However, if you need policy, torrents cannot be used as references and the video is not public domain and therefore any link to it is a copyright violation. The video, taken illegally, has led to so many interviews in which this woman talks about the violation of it, the devastating mental affectation, and occupational strife and yet someone here actually feels that it's a good thing to add it to the article? I'm going to be honest - it's not. Clamshell Deathtrap (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree about that. I wasn't even thinking about copy right issues, but more or less the legality of the site that was used as a ref. I agree it should not be added, and did not know about the use of torrents not being allowed. Clamshell, can you point me to the policy where it states that, so I know and can read it for future reference? Thanks-- Navy Blue84  01:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A torrent cannot be used as a reference because it is not a WP:RS. Here we have a case where the use of the torrent only proves that the video exists. When you reference something with a newspaper article, one only need read the article. A torrent is just a data stream. In effect, a person would have to download a torrent client, download the actual torrent, watch the movie, and even then it's not a reliable source because you can't exactly say "X happened in the movie Casablanca" and use the movie itself as a reference. You need a 3rd party reference to do that for you. I'm not sure that policy specifically excludes a torrent, but I suppose the better question would be is there any case in which a torrent could be useful in an article? For that I would have to say no. They are only useful to share media via the internet but are not sources of information, regardless of the content. Clamshell Deathtrap (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The ONLY person who has copyright to the video is the guy that took it - not the naked girl in it, and he is in jail. And since the guy released it into the public domain by posting it online for free, he has waived any legal claim to it.  At least that is what they taught me when I was in law school.  Whether or not Erin Andrews wants it online or not makes no difference as she is not the owner of the video.  Additionally, The Pirate Bay is not illegal. It does not host any files; thus, it is protected under US Copyright law (which I am assuming you are referring to).  At the most, they could possibly - possibly - be guilty of contributory infringement.  However, in Sony v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984), a case brought by the movie industry against the Sony Betamax VCR, the Supreme Court found that contributory infringement liability could not reach the manufacturer of a device that is "capable of substantial noninfringing use."  Only the act of downloading a pirated movie (which is done by the individual) is illegal, and those videos come from individuals on the P2P network - not the Pirate Bay. if that is your only reason for taking the link out, then I shall replace it.  FYI - I think it is a good thing to add this to the article.  She has made plenty of money off her naked videos and for her to be crying and claiming any mental issues is bogus.  The only reason why she is famous is because she made those naked videos.


 * It should also be pointed out that The Pirate Bay has never been found 'guilty' of anything in any U.S. court, be it state or federal. If you are going to be making legal claims please at least have some knowledge of the law first. Republic of Texas (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have just read WP:RS and could find nothing that prohibited the use of a torrent for reference. In fact, the policy specifically states: The following specific examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive.  Thus, it is clear that other types of sources may be used.  Since the torrent itself is proof positive that the video was never taken down or removed from the internet, I see no reason why it cannot be used as a source. Republic of Texas (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Then try BLP again. I quote from Biographies_of_living_persons: "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from 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." While Andrews is notable for her career, linking to a peephole video taken without her consent is a flagrant violation of BLP. BLPs are not to be taken lightly. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * After reading that cite you provided, you are correct. The only reason why I put the torrent link there to begin with was because someone had come along and changed the article and said that the videos had been removed from the internet.  So I put the link there to show that is not the case.  So what about changing the language while still getting the point across?  Erin Andrews does not control the internets and her video is widely available to anyone who wants to check it out. Republic of Texas (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure which law class you took but posting online doesn't release anything into the public domain. Just as the words that I am typing right now are not released into the public domain. Maybe someone at Commons can clear up the misconception. In addition, common sense could have been exercised to avoid any of this policy talk. Yes, Adobe Photoshop exists. Does the article need a link to the torrent to prove it? The man was convicted for taking the video. Do you not wonder about the liability of providing a link to the illegal video? All it would take is one of her lawyers to assert that Wikipedia was providing a link to the torrent and for someone who went to law school, I would think you would understand the legal ramifications. Clamshell Deathtrap (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Republic of Texas, if you think it should be added then fine that is your opinion. However there is no consensus here for it to be added. If you would like more clarification if a torrent can be used then I suggest going to the RS noticeboard and asking there. As for torrent sites being illegal, what about all the torrent sites that have been shut down recently? The guy in jail has no right to the video, but Erin Andrews does, she got the rights in court when she won and had the video blocked. We need to follow WP:BLP and that is all we are trying to do here.-- Navy Blue84  16:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure the point could be re-worded, Republic of Texas. But with BLP in mind, we don't want to encourage people to look for the video, do we? While it's true that "Erin Andrews does not control the internets and her video is widely available to anyone who wants to check it out", Wikipedia is under no obligation to help people check it out. -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Erin Andrews never 'won' anything in court against this guy. It was the State (the u.s. govt) that prosecuted the guy & "won", not Erin Andrews.  I don't know who you claim she had blocked from showing the video.  The video itself is not illegal to download, to see, or to have.  The only person who broke the law here was the guy that allegedly made the video.  Just like if I watch a video of somemore getting murdered, I am not guilty of murder or anything else.  You are confusing morality with what is legal under the law.  Since the video itself is not illegal to see, have, or hold, there can be no liability for linking to it.  Your example, Clamshell, of the pirated copy of Adobe is different since it is illegal to have a pirated copy of software.  When you post something online with the intention of giving it away, not selling it, then that is what is means - you gave it away.  So when I post a naked video that I made online for people do download for free, I cannot claim that I own it when I have already given it away.  Posting something online is no different than walking around your neighborhood and handing out gifts to people, (assuming that people would want to see you naked).  When you give someone that DVD than it becomes a 'gift' and the person who receives the gift now owns the gift (such as with Christmas presents & birthdays).  While it is true that Erin has filed some lawsuits over the video, the lawsuits have been against the hotels where this stuff happened at (for invasion of privacy & related torts) and against the guy who made the naked videos.http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07/erin-andrews-files-lawsuit.html.  In my personal opinion, I think that Erin Andrews is a whore and I still believe that she was behind this somehow.  She has made a ton of money off of this and it is the only reason why people even know who she is. Republic of Texas (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You just made the case I was making RoT. The video is illegal, one way or the other. Having a link to the video or to a download of the video, could mean legal trouble for Wikipedia. None the less, there is no real need for there to be a link to the video or a torrent to download it. Just because something is posted online, does not make it public domain. Anything said on Wikipedia is because of the copyright license that is used. The only way something can be public domain is if there is an appropriate GFDL license.-- Navy Blue84  23:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OMG - don't you know how to read? I did not make the case that the video is illegal!  I specifically and repeatedly stated that the video is NOT illegal!!!!!  While I mentioned that she is filing lawsuits against the hotels, that has nothing to do with whether or not the video is legal or illegal.  If you tape naked pictures of me and put them on the internet and your mom downloads them, how is her possession of the naked video of me illegal?  Yes, I could sue you.  But I cannot sue the person who downloads for free off of the internet.  So your mom is safe.  Before you start trying to hand out legal advice or opinions, please know and study the law.


 * Just curious, what law school did you go to, Navy Blue? When it comes to the public domain, there is no catch. If a book, song, movie or artwork is in the public domain, then it is not protected by intellectual property laws (such as copyright, trademark or patent law) --which means it's free for you to use without permission. As a general rule, most works enter the public domain because of old age. This includes any work published in the United States before 1923. Another large block of works are in the public domain because they were published before 1964 and copyright was not renewed. (Renewal was a requirement for works published before 1978.) A smaller group of works fell into the public domain because they were published without copyright notice (copyright notice was necessary for works published in the United States before March 1, 1989). Some works are in the public domain because the owner has indicated a desire to give them to the public without copyright protection - which is what happened with the Erin Andrews video.  Or when I posted on the internet for free that naked video of myself that your mom downloaded. Republic of Texas (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * RoT, remember to keep it civil!! I know how to read, I have a couple university degrees. The video is an invasion of her privacy (a crime) and therefore is illegal. I am not saying that is what you said, it is what I am saying. Taking pictures/video of someone is a CRIME (I should know, I am a cop). Just because the guy who taped it released it, doesn't mean its public domain, esp. while it is the center of an ongoing legal battle.

We will just have to agree to disagree here. The video, a link to it or a link to a torrent of the video is not needed or helpful to the article. If someone wants to keep there personal life private they have the right to that. As far as I am concerned this issue is closed. There is a consensus not to put it in the article. I am done with this issue.-- Navy Blue84  13:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)