Talk:Rogue (musician)/Archive 1

Untitled
Article listed on WP:VFD Jul 14 to Jul 23 2004, consensus was not reached. Discussion:

Le vanity. Le delete. Ambivalenthysteria 13:47, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Del: The band is legit and deserves an article. This guy doesn't. Birthplace could be merged with existing bandmembers list, if that. TPK 13:53, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Spectatrix 16:18, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)
 * Keep. &mdash;Lady Lysi&#0331;e Iki&#0331;sile | Talk 17:33, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no reason to keep this non-important person. Rick'''K 20:09, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - foundations of a potentially good article, presents sufficient information to remain. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 21:47, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * No vote as yet. However: 1. it should be under his real name. 2. the bracket should be (musician) or (singer), not (person). 3. if it had some content or wikification ... I'll check again tomorrow - David Gerard 21:50, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep now. Stubby stub, but a person of sufficient note and there's some actual info and wikification there. And if we know where he went to college his name should be out there and findable - David Gerard 19:08, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I did consider that, but how do you go about locating one person in a list of however many? (This should probably move to the talk page in any case...) &mdash;Lady Lysi&#0331;e Iki&#0331;sile | Talk 19:10, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)
 * If it has no content or wikification it should be listed on cleanup, not vfd. It probably should be under his real name, but does anyone know what that is? &mdash;Lady Lysi&#0331;e Iki&#0331;sile | Talk 22:16, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)
 * Redirect to his real name (whatever that is). Exploding Boy 05:54, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * This is tough. Is this guy really better known than the average college professor?  It would be good to put this under his real name, but Google implies that this is a well-kept secret.  Keep and move to Rogue (singer), I guess. - Nat Krause 18:44, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * He's better known by this alias than by his real name, so move to Rogue (singer) and keep. -Sean Curtin 00:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- orthogonal 11:31, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete: Far too little information here. This sentence can go in the article for the band.  Plenty of folks will search for Rogue, but I don't think there will be many people searching for an article on this individual. Geogre 14:15, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion

Keep his real name on here. Even the porn stars listed on Wikipedia have their real names revealed. Madonna's name is here, Bowie's name is too, so it Divine's. ... is the correct name, and it shall stay. Once you are public enough to deserve your own page, basic info about you is public. If Sirhan Sirhan doesn't want his entry to say that he shot Bobby Kennedy, his opinion on the matter doesn't have much sway, so whether Rogue *wants* his name here or not is BESIDE THE POINT. Hoes.

What should Wikipedia policy be in the case of an invidual, such as this Rogue fellow, who is famous only under a pseudonym and apparently wants to avoid having his real name publicly available? Should we have any consideration for the whims of the subject? - Nat Krause 06:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep the article. Rogue has a large fanbase.
However, remove his birthname from the article. He does not appreciate such info being included. He is Rogue and will forever be Rogue. His birth name was not who he was. So please remove and leave removed his birth name.

With over 150,000 records sold, a bio of Rogue is certainly relevant to a considerable number of people. However, it seems a reasonable request to allow celebrities some measure of privacy. With easy access (through public records or social engineering) to a wide variety of databases, a full legal name can easily yield an address, phone number, and other sensitive information. Rogue's song credits and publishing are listed as "Rogue" and this clearly indicates a desire to keep his personal life shielded from his professional life. Listing a birth name is a violation of privacy.

That is ridiculous. Names are available in public records. We're not here to please Rogue. - Vague | Rant 07:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is ridiculous to listen to a discussion by "Vague Rant," "Ambivalenthysteria" and "Exploding Boy" about whether or not the posting of someone's real name, when that person prefers to be known by a pseudonym, is problematic. As "names are available in public records" then it seems that all voting in favor of posting Rogue's "real" name against his wishes would probably have no problems with their full legal names and addresses (also "available in public records") posted in their user profiles, right?  Or will we then be treated to the sad and dim argument that by virtue of being a "celebrity," a person loses their right to privacy? -Anonymous


 * Despite having re-added the name before, I vaguely agree with anonymous here, although not necessarily with his reasoning. The main thing is that Rogue's real name is not publically available, at least not on the web. If nothing else, it's not confirmable. If and when it becomes publically recorded, then we should add it to the article, and we will not be doing any further harm to Rogue's privacy than is already a fait accompli. Unless I'm mistaken, there is some mention of a personal name on the Cruexshaedows' website, so we might could mention something like "this name appears on such and such, and there's speculation that this is Rogue's name". That would certainly be no less well-sourced that just about everything else currently in this article. - Nat Krause 08:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Rogue is a celebrity (however minor he may be) and as such, his real name should be included in his bio, as any other pseudonymed person would have. His home phone number was printed in the liner notes of "Telemetry" for ten years, so while he may be embarrassed by his real name, he doesn't seem too stressed about that level of privacy. Also, in relation to an earlier comment about a "name on the website," six years ago the official website asked that all payments by check be made out to (a particular name).  Seems to me this issue of privacy is moot, given various precedents. - Spidremonkey 10:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ten years ago, Will Ferrel's home phone number was probably listed in the phone book, too, and six years ago, the Evanescence website probably asked checks to be made out to Amy Lee's real name as well, but we're not living in the late 20th century any longer. These people, like Rogue, have careers, they've grown, and they're trying to maintain some small measure of privacy (and safety).  Why should someone have the right to violate a person's privacy while hiding behind the name "Spidremonkey" and not using their own real name in the process of doing so? Anyone who argues in favor of publishing a celebrity's real name against their wishes should, at a minimum, try to make that argument using their own real name.


 * Gosh, if it really bothers you that much, my name is Aaron Knier. Happy now? - Spidremonkey 03:29, 6 February 2006

Straight Talk
It's a bit disingenuous for "Nat Krause" (assuming that is his real name) to state some measure of support to respecting the privacy of the person in question, while at the same time including the person's real name throughout various posts he's made on the topic. It's somewhat akin to having a debate about whether or not it's okay to reveal the spoiler in The Sixth Sense and titling the discussion "Can we tell people that the Bruce Willis character is already dead?" It renders the discussion more than a bit moot.

I'm not sure what interests Nat feels are being served by violating someone's expressed wish of privacy. Perhaps he can elaborate on that point. Also, to his assertion that "Unless I'm mistaken, there is some mention of a personal name on the Cruexshaedows' [sic] website," a source on that would be helpful.

While I myself am a fan of this band, he is by no means an icon worthy of a page.

Another Voice
I'm not seeing the problem here. The Cruxshadows are a fairly popular band in that particular scene, and Rogue is something of a celebrity. Just on a goof, I looked up several other bands--Smashing Pumpkins, Aerosmith, and Bauhaus. Sure enough, the front men for these bands (Billy Corgan, Steven Tyler, and Peter Murphy, respectively) all have their own pages. Why not Rogue?

For that matter, referring to something in the discussion above, why not your local college professor? More information is a good thing, not a bad thing.

I do think, however, that if Rogue gets his own page, it should have his birth name (since it's available). Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia--the point is to be informative, not to cater to the feelings of the people who may be covered in it.

from Synthetic_coma Adding him to wikipedia is not against the wikipedia rules, the page does not break any of them either. He has a VERY large fanbase in Germany (i know seeing how i live there)so if your going by popularity then there it is.

Either way it doesnt matter if a few admins or editors know who he is or likes him. Wikipedia is for people to look up things and get results, its not serving its purpose if people cant find information.

Also, marilyn manson has a page under his name. not brian warner


 * What's with all the mushy stuff?! Despite the various schools represented here (inclusionist, deletionist,...), we at least all agree that this is still an Encyclopædia, right? Why should we treat this differently than any other figure's nom de plume? Speaking of Bauhaus, David J's last name is on his page, and I'm sure there are numerous more examples like: Sting, Cher, Madonna, etc. Khiradtalk 05:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it verifiable?
So far, several names have appeared in this article, all purporting to be Rogue's "real name." None of these names have come with the benefit of any sources. Why is unsourced, unverifiable speculation being tolerated in this article?


 * YES, it is verifiable. Personal interviews with the subject, Rogue, by me, in 2001 and 2005.  One was broadcast on my college radio station.  Any name other than Virgil Roger Dupont that has been posted here is vandalism with the sole intent of creating confusion and debasing the validity of the article's stating his actual name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amber388 (talk • contribs)


 * Can you point towards a published (Web or print) source? Something that someone else could check? Not that I don't believe you, but those sources can't be externally verified, which is a problem. Phil Sandifer 14:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Aha. - look at the name to which checks should be made out. This, combined with Amber's assertion that Rogue has admitted to the name on a radio interview is enough for me, at least, to accept that this is verifiable. Phil Sandifer 19:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for tracking that page down. For what it's worth, the mentioned name in the interview was not part of the broadcast itself (full disclosure, I figure), but if there's another V.R.D. involved with the band I'd be surprised.  Again, I understand Rogue's desire to go by his stage name (which is why the entry is under his stage name, as opposed to, say, Vitamin C, who is listed under her real name, Colleen_Fitzpatrick).  I do hope that this article's inclusion of the name is not too offensive to him, as I myself have quite enjoyed much of his band's music; it's just that if you're going to argue for this musician's inclusion under his own entry in an encyclopedia (which the above poster apparently did -- check the IP address contibutions), then it is only fair that the entry abide by the standards of all other pseudonymous articles here. Amber388 21:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How about some of us who used to know Virgil personally. Does that count as verification.

Unconfirmed
While of course it complicates matters that the name appears on his own website, it is worth noting that at least in theory that name could be the name of a business manager, another pseudonym, etc.

We have testimony (which I have no reason to doubt) that this name was confirmed in a radio interview (but in a part that wasn't broadcast?), but this is not verifiable by our usual standards. I can't go anywhere on the web or to a library to listen to it myself.

In all cases like this, we should practice our usual policy of requiring validation in a published mainstream source: not blogs, not usenet posts, not emails, not un-aired radio interviews, not testimony from Wikipedians. Err on the side of human dignity, not on the side of speculation.--Jimbo Wales 14:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * . When their songs are registered with ASCAP, that's done under his real name as well. Phil Sandifer 15:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Or someone's real name, at any rate. There are three names on that page, and none of them are "Rogue" so I'm not sure how you make the leap. Also, I'm not sure how digging through ASCAP's database is any different from digging through a WHOIS database or the gas company's database.


 * Well, and Rogue is always listed as a songwriter, so at least Rogue is one of those three names. And also the person you write the checks to. And also the name he's given on radio shows. Anyone have any evidence for any other name? Phil Sandifer 13:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The BMI database does list Virgil Roger Dupont III as the sole songwriter on all Cruxshadows songs, by the way. So that's settled. Phil Sandifer 18:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds like something that should be listed on the band's page; the writer of all the songs isn't this "Rogue" guy but someone else named Virgil, and "Rogue" is merely the guy on stage, singing someone else's words; unless of course they are the same person. Xinit 19:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing name from talk
This is kind of ludicrous, and seems based on a willful misinterpretation of the harassment rules. The single mention of the name is A) Not in any way construable as an attack on Rogue, and B) Clearly in the service of the completely sensible and necessary goal of figuring out what should and shouldn't go in the article.

Furthermore, I can't help but notice that you've got an IP assigned to Time Warner Cable in Philadelphia. Interestingly, Dancing Ferret is also based out of Philadelphia. I'm sure this is just coincidence, of course, since it would be unfortunate, to say the least, for someone so involved in the subject matter to make such a controversial edit.

And, of course, the whole matter is somewhat academic, as even if you do revert war the name out of the talk page, it remains in both the article history and talk page history. Unless you're going to raise a fuss and see if you can get an admin to selectively delete all edits that contain the name. Which, let me tell you, good luck trying. Phil Sandifer 18:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't think very highly of that Harassment policy, do you? Not only have you blatantly circumvented the policy by copying information that was already removed from this article (apparently by Jimbo Wales) and reposting it in the revision history pages (and then bragged about it here), but you've posted what you believe to be personal information about me - my supposed place of work, which is also a violation of the Harassment policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)


 * Well, I mean, it's tough not to notice that you post from an IP in Philadelphia. Really, you're the one who's posted that, every time you edit without a username. I mean, commenting on what your IP is when you post under it is rather like commenting on what my name is. In which case you're harassing yourself? I'm not sure. In any case, I didn't move any information onto the talk page - Amber's post of the name on talk came before Jimbo's removal, and has always been in the history. Nor did I post anything to the history pages - any edit automatically gets saved in history.


 * Put another way, I'm assuming that you (Or someone else at Dancing Ferret) was the one to call the Wikimedia offices and complain. Or Rogue himself did the call, and you've just been doing the editing. Either way, you were involved in the removal of the name. All well and good, but how much are you really trying to scorch the earth here? I mean, the name is in the ASCAP and BMI databases, and on the website. You're not exactly covering up any grand secrets here, and it's not as though anyone is trying to spread the name further - you're trying to remove one mention from a talk page that was done in the course of trying to decide whether the name should go in the article. That's absurd. You got the name taken out of the article. But trying to erase the fact that it was discussed, and that it is undoubtedly Rogue's birth name that got removed is an over the line revision to history. And it just means that next time someone puts two and two together and adds it to the article, we have to go through the whole damn argument again.


 * I mean, that's the problem - the policies don't actually support you here. There's no way to interpret this as harassment. It was a good faith effort to determine whether the name was accurate and whether to include it in the article. So the question is how much is it reasonable to cover up something that's a matter of public record. And this is just over the line. Phil Sandifer 21:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I won't address all of your speculation, but I will point out that this is the second time you've violated the Harassment policy by posting what you believe to be my work location. I have not commented on your name or where I believe you might work.  The fact is that information that violates Wikipedia written policy was posted in this article and was subsequently removed by Wikipedia. You have attempted to circumvent that written policy by including the exact same information in your comments to the revision history.  Denying that you have done so is a bit mind-boggling as you boast about having done so in your previous post, above. Why you have trouble understanding that people do not want their personal information published on Wikipedia is a mystery.  Here is the written policy. It is very clear.  
 * Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether the information is actually correct) is almost always harassment. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment
 * What part of this policy do you feel is inapplicable to what you have repeatedly done?    —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)


 * The assumption of that policy is that the posting is done with the intent of "outing" someone. That is not being done here - neither for Rogue nor for you. As for commenting on my name, I'm not sure how you would make a particular revelation about the fact that my name is Phil Sandifer - any more than I'm sure how you think my pointing out that your IP is what it is is somehow a revelation about you. By that standard, you're harassing yourself. Phil Sandifer 02:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is perhaps worth pausing here to explain an important detail about the culture here. We do not, generally speaking, treat any of our policies as a suicide pact. That is to say, if following the letter of a policy leads to an obviously erroneous conclusions (Like us being unable to actually say the name we're trying to figure out if is verifiable or not), we assume that the policy is poorly written and carry on with making sense. Phil Sandifer 02:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Privacy
I don't see why Rogue is so privey about his real name. He is not a private person. It's nice that when you're from a famous wealthy family like the Du Ponts you can just threaten to sue wikipedia and they'll do something for you they wouldn't do for the rest of us. It makes me regret ever helping him in his career.

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)