Talk:Star Wars Kid/Archive 3

Article full protected for a week
Due to the edit warring, I am fully protecting the article for one week.

I am not going to take any BLP violation or WP:3RR or WP:EDITWAR related enforcement actions at this time. I would like to request that, when the full protect ends, nobody launch into a new round of fighting over it. THAT, will lead to blocks.

The RFC above is fine. Edit warring over BLP issues, especially long settled ones, is not OK. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Protection template
editprotected Please replace the protetion template  with something like. Thank you, Debresser (talk) 13:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Not really a big deal though, is it? :) ≈ Chamal  talk ☃ 03:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, but it helps keeping Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates empty. So thank you. And you learned to be more carefull next time. Also a gain. Debresser (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Draft FAQ
As a result of a suggestion by User:A Quest For Knowledge in the RFC above, I've written a draft FAQ which is transcluded to the top of this talk page. For the page itself, see Talk:Star Wars Kid/FAQ. --TS 05:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If we won't name him
We should remove all the links to external sites that name him. Otherwise, it's shallow hypocrisy to simply exclude his name. We're doing it half-assed, if we're going to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.86.33 (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See FAQ Q2. Yes, all compromise lays one open to the charge of hypocrisy.  This is why people over the age of 15 can seldom make a credible charge of hypocrisy.  Accommodating conflicting principles to arrive at an acceptable end result is very much what we do here. --TS 14:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it even possible for you to answer a question without a backhanded insult? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.86.33 (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I agree that the reference to adolescence was rude. --TS 14:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

proposed change
I propose changing
 * " It was taped it over a portion of a basketball game..."

to
 * " It was taped over a portion of a basketball game..."

for grammar reasons. Any objections? RJFJR (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Straightforward. I've taken the liberty of adding an tag so an administrator may see the proposal and perform this uncontroversial edit. --TS 14:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've taken care of this uncontroversial edit. Thank you, RJFJR.--Slp1 (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC
A dispute has been reopened that has been repeated again and again in the past. Editors are introducing the Star Wars kid's real name into the article citing WP:CENSOR. On the other side, editors are removing his name citing WP:BLP as he was victimized and the policy states, "This is of profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." Should the SWK's real name be included in the article or does this assist in his victimization?  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 23:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So you're saying that because this person has been victimized at some point, we can't say his name, even though this is a biographical article about him? Friginator (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The individual is not notable, the event is. We aren't writing the story of his life.  We are writing about the internet meme.  So no, it is not necessary to include his name.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 23:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree; if one were to ask that person their view, there's little doubt that they would strongly request their name be omitted. This isn't a case of whitewashing a BLP, it's a case where the person's notoriety is a direct result of unlawful activity against him by others. He's sued, and had settlement payments from, the perpetrators - so clearly there was a case for damages. Let's not compound the suffering of the victim? Little grape (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the established consensus that this article should remain without his real name. This is not his biography. It is a discussion of a brief, unfortunate episode in a person's life, that is not improved one whit by the name of the individual involved. WP:CENSOR does not trump our moral and ethical responsibility to a living young man whose foolish decision (to trust friends), resulted in serious consequences to his life and reputation. I'll also note that the decision to omit the name has been externally and approvingly reviewed in The Times by Jonathan Zittrain, Harvard and Oxford University Internet law prof. --Slp1 (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC) --Slp1 (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. If this were a biographical article, it would be at the persons name, and it would contain information about him. This is an article about the viral video. WP:BLP1E applies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree that his name should be omitted per WP:BLP1E. J04n(talk page) 02:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Omit name, obviously. Steve Smith (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

We've had this discussion repeatedly. It would be helpful to avoid going around this question again unless there is something that would indicate a possibility for a different outcome. Until there is a major change in the BLP policy, its clear that we cover the event here, not the person. Who this person is matters very little to an encyclopedic discussion of the meme. Shell  babelfish 02:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to prevent auto-archiving so I don't have to keep explaining the justification to new editors, as in the section above?  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 04:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, not everyone agrees, and not everyone who disagrees is a "new user". The fact that the question keeps getting asked indicates a potential problem in and of itself. Effectively all of the sources use the name, indicating that they considered it important to the discussion. By failing to follow that lead, we are in essence engaging in POV&mdash;relying on our own opinion of what we should or should not include, rather than looking to the majority of reliable sources for the answer. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Any time we form a consensus and exercise editorial control, we are expressing an opinion. When we decide which policy applies, we are expressing an opinion.  To include the name would be an expression that WP:CENSOR trumps WP:BLP, which it specifically states it does not.  Wikipedia is its own animal.  It has its own policies.  Wikipedia does not cave to the peer pressure of other media outlets.  We follow our policies that are established and agreed upon by our editors.  If other sources wish to engage in unethical activities, that is their decision.  That does not mean we should blindly follow them.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 05:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue here isn't even really not being censored, though that is an important consideration. The most important consideration is neutrality. The way to resolve neutrality issues is simple&mdash;ask "What do the sources say?" What is ethical and what is not is often a subjective consideration. One would assume that professional journalists are well versed in journalistic ethics. A vast majority of these professionals came to the conclusion that including the name falls within ethical bounds. Imagine a different situation&mdash;an editor comes along and says it is "unethical" for us to state that a certain medical treatment is effective, as he believes it is not. Others share that belief. Yet, the vast majority of the scientific literature on the subject states that it indeed is. It would be POV for us to follow that opinion, even if it is widespread. We could certainly report that there is controversy, provided that it is sourced well, but to actually exclude the findings of effectiveness from the article based on such opinions would absolutely be POV. The situation here is no different. We've got a reliable source saying the situation is controversial. We can use that source. But to follow that source, to the exclusion of dozens of others, is POV. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument is a Red herring. This issue here is WP:BLP.  Again you are suggesting "because they do it, we must do it, to do otherwise is POV."  That's not how policies work.  Other websites do not always act ethically and do not observe the same policies as we do.  Your comparision is completely inaccurate.  For one, your example is not a WP:BLP issue.  For two, in your example we would be deliberately contradicting the sources.  We aren't here.  We are omitting information, not changing it.  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 09:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The other example would be the same&mdash;we would simply be omitting the well-sourced effectiveness information, not changing it (and in that case, someone could theoretically die if we were on the wrong side). As to omission, that can cause POV just as much as commission can. For a simple example, imagine we included only the pro-choice or pro-life viewpoints in the abortion article. I think you'd find people to consider that POV relatively quickly. For a BLP issue, presume that we included only the information in the Richard Jewell article about him being suspected of the bombing, while omitting that he was subsequently found to be totally innocent. Again, that omission would cause the article to be POV and inaccurate. The omission here is similar&mdash;we are allowing our opinion of what dozens of perfectly reliable sources should or should not have done affect what we include or omit from the article. That is the very definition of allowing our POV to color an article, rather than relying on sources. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what POV on the meme you believe is served by omitting the name? I'm at a loss to understand how this omission promotes any particular viewpoint.  I see this more as a choice of descriptors; one does not need to name a BLPs sexual orientation, high school teachers or pant size to adequately discuss the encyclopedic information about the subject.  We cover the meme in extended detail; the name of the person appearing in the original video is of very minimal weight in the grand scheme of things - they are neither famous nor known for anything outside of this meme.  Using their name does nothing to enhance our understanding of the meme. Shell   babelfish 18:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article sounds exceptionally awkward without it&mdash;continually trying to find anonymous reference terms, rather than a simple name, makes it obvious we're bending over backward to do something here. After seeing how widely the name is available, it becomes clearly that that "something" is to deliberately suppress it. When we have a name, we use a name. Further, readers of the article might absolutely want to do further research on the person rather than the meme. To do that, they'd have to know their name. As to what viewpoint is being pushed, it's being expressed right here in this RFC&mdash;"The name shouldn't have been used". The fact remains that it was, overwhelmingly, used by dozens of sources, so if someone does want to use it in the article, there shouldn't be any objection. It's well sourced, totally verifiable, relevant information that's already available to the public. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The name shouldn't have been used." is not a POV on the article topic, its an editing POV - very different animals. If wording is the concern, sofixit.  If readers wish to have more information, they have the references and external links just like any other article. Nothing about the person's name is important to understanding the video and the meme that grew from it. Shell   babelfish 18:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to fix it, and could do so easily. But the way to do that isn't available, even though it's sourced and verifiable. I would absolutely disagree that the name is not important to understanding the topic&mdash;it's the name of the central figure. And, yes, readers can always follow a reference to get more information, but that's not any kind of justification for excluding material from that reference. The ideal situation is that there's never a bit of information in an article that a reader could not find by consulting an article's references. That doesn't mean we may as well remove all the article text and simply leave a reference list. As to POV, when "editing POV" starts excluding sourced material, it starts contributing to article POV, intentionally or not. As the article stands, it is quite clearly pushing a viewpoint, and that's been so clear to readers that many of them have come here to comment on it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me try explaining my point from a different direction. Short of "we want to know the kids name" what encyclopedic purpose does that bit of information serve? Is the video or meme or the reaction to either changed by knowing the person's name? Shell   babelfish 19:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * His name means nothing in that he is not known for anything else. If Tom Cruise did it his name would be included but in this case the only notability is the video, not the person. J04n(talk page) 21:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, let me try mine from a different direction too, and reverse the question. What good does it do to exclude the name? There's no privacy issue here&mdash;the information is clearly publicly available, whether you or I think it should've been made so or not. We're not proposing to say something unverifiable or controversial, so the main part of BLP certainly doesn't apply. I agree what happened to this guy was terrible, and the real best result would be that his schoolmates didn't pull their stunt and we never had this article to talk about at all. But that's just not the case, and I don't see how failing to include the name, resulting in an awkward sounding, hard to read, clearly slanted article (which most certainly does impede understanding) in any way helps that. There is also still the question of further research, which an interested reader might want to do. Excluding the name would either impede them in that (which runs counter to our core goal), as a lot of the material on the subject is searchable by the name, or they would quickly discover what it is, in which case we accomplished nothing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you mean what 'good' from a moral or ethical standpoint it's easy - mentioning his name may prolong the effects of what you already agree was 'terrible' for him. QED. With respect, I think you're not bringing any new points with your multiple responses - perhaps you might put yourself in his shoes for one moment, and then ask yourself whether your determination to include what most agree is a non-essential detail has the potential to cause yet more hurt and upset to the victim here? Little grape (talk) 07:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(indent reset) I was actually referring to "good" in terms of actual, realistic effect, not speculative. What's done is done, in this scenario. I do not imagine that the subject here loses sleep over whether or not his name is included in another source or not, and see nothing to the contrary. I certainly hope that he's just put that part of his life behind him and moved on with it. Regardless, we cannot stuff this genie back in the bottle many years after the fact. Trying to do so may be done with the most noble of intentions, but it's a rather quixotic undertaking, and cannot succeed. The real service we can do is write a good article on what happened, complete with all relevant information, in the hopes that it serves as a cautionary tale to someone else who would do the same. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument becomes even weaker if you're now going to rely upon your hopes and wishes that the subject has 'moved on'. It is clear that the person had psychiatric problems as a result of this episode, and that any reasonable person might deduce that such problems might be perpetuated and compounded by the dogged determination to print the victim's name. Your 'genie in the bottle' analogy again ignores the points that have been made to you above; just because another publication prints his name doesn't mean WP has to, particularly as WP is more likely to be first port of call for anyone searching for information on the video. As for your hope that the article serves as a cautionary tale - how is the inclusion of his name going to further that 'hope'? Finally, you doidn't answer the question I posed, which in my opinion is the nub: 'perhaps you might put yourself in his shoes for one moment, and then ask yourself whether your determination to include what most agree is a non-essential detail has the potential to cause yet more hurt and upset to the victim here?' Little grape (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it has any potential to do that. It was already made public many years ago. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

We are currently the top google result for the young man's real name. This "amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." We can't control what any of these other sources do, but that doesn't mean that we have to participate in activities which the community has found are unacceptable. (Speculation on the victim's metal state and whether or not he has 'moved on' is irrelevant and not helping the BLP issues, either, incidentally.) There really is no argument here. Per WP:BLP, we must not include the victim's name. -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 18:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with others who have stated that this article pertains specifically to the Internet meme, and thus the biographical information is relevant but not mandatory. As the individual's identity is not relevant for any reason other than the meme, knowing his name does not confer any additional understanding of the topic. And, as per WP:BLP "The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment." This indicates to me that it is better to err on the side of caution, especially when the data being consider do not contribute significantly to the information content of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.242.23.251 (talk) 06:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe this article does not fall into WP:BLP, and therefore there is no need for a name. Just give the kid a break already. > RUL3R >trolling >vandalism  21:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm responding to the RfC. While this is an article about a viral video and not a person,   WP:BLP applies to all biographical information regardless of the article. Given that this person is only notable for one event, his name should be omitted.  If this question keeps popping up over and over again, I suggest that you add a FAQ to the talk page.  It won't stop people from asking about this, but at least you'll have something to point people to.  If you need an example for a FAQ, see our talk page for Barack Obama.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with "A Quest For Knowledge" above. We obviously shouldn't be including the name of this private individual associated with a meme that has caused him measurable damage, but writing up a FAQ will help to break the news to the many people who keep coming here wanting to put it in.  --TS 05:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He's notable for two events, both the video and the lawsuit that happened after. His name is widely reported and trying to keep it out of this article is little more than censorship hiding behind BLP. BLP doesn't apply to well sourced info.--Crossmr (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The lawsuit is only notable because the meme is notable. Thus we should only include information about the lawsuit as it applies to the meme.  And WP:BLP applies to all material, regardless of how well it is sourced.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 12:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The statement that "BLP doesn't apply to well sourced info" is simply false. The biographies of living persons policy applies to every single statement about a living person on any part of Wikipedia, whether sourced or not.  --TS 13:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Except the argument being made is weak. The claim is that the privacy of names section covers his name but it does not. The examples given are about family members of notable people, or something like that. That is not the case here. He is quite notable in that his name is reported in hundreds of reliable sources in connection with this video over a period of several years. If you want to claim that the lawsuit is part of the same event, which happened much later, you could make the same claim about any famous person. Any actor only gets the parts and coverage because of the great job they did the first time around that made them famous. This isn't even remotely a case for privacy of names. If we were talking about his siblings names or parents names, there might be a point.--Crossmr (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * BLP is the policy being cited, not the Privacy of Names section mentioned above. I think you'll see some other, very relevant material when reading the policy in its entirety. e.g.
 * "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy..... The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment";
 * "Presumption of Privacy- Wikipedia articles about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so.... 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....This is of profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."
 * There's more too, which you find yourself. --Slp1 (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And I don't see how either of those are relevant. The same argument could be made for any article and we shouldn't include anyone's name who is alive. In more recent years, he's reported simply by name and then it is mentioned that he is famous for the video. And privacy of name was being cited in the FAQ when I wrote that, so before you tell me it isn't, check the faq. The legal and ethical implications are quite clear here. Finding his name is trivial. There was no legal judgment that said his name shouldn't be printed in connection with this incident. With finding his name being so trivial, omitting it from the article does nothing to protect his privacy.--Crossmr (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing up where you got the "privacy of names" reference. There are actually relatively few people mentioned here on WP whose notability stems from their victimization by others. (There are a few, however, where very similar decisions have been made.) So no, the specific issues here about identification don't follow for all BLP articles as you describe. And note again, this is not a biography; the article is not about him and contains nothing about his life (childhood/schooling etc). The issue is not whether finding his name is trivial (we can't do anything about what other people do) but whether it is ethical and right to include it here. In fact, put "star wars kid" into Google as I did here and you might be surprised to know that only one of the top ten links names him in full.  Two mention his first name alone. Why should the WP article (at the top of the list, of course) insist on outing him and perpetuating the victimization, when so many others websites are wisely discreet and allow him some privacy? Yes, people can find out if they want, even quite easily. But there is absolutely no good reason for broadcasting it ourselves, and plenty of ethical, moral and humanitarian reasons why we wouldn't. --Slp1 (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The change shows that those supporting its omission aren't even clear on why it is being omitted. You haven't demonstrated how including his name which is trivial to find and is apparently in one of the sources cited in the article, would continue any victimization. Do you have some evidence that someone used information from the article to harass him? Or that the information used here is substantially greater or easier to find than information elsewhere that could be used to victimize him? Wikipedia should include it because they are an encyclopedia. It is all well and good to claim those things as a reason, but unless you can show how including it would actually further those, you're not really making much of an argument here. Wikipedia is about notable information, and even years later his full name is still being reported in reliable sources, it is a notable part of what happened here. In terms of how many websites are discreet and afford him some "privacy", google tells that "Star wars kid" + first name is 6000 hits (give or take) and "star wards kid" + full name is 4600 hits. The vast majority have reported his full name. So can you tell me why it is that wikipedia is omitting information that so many websites choose to include and how it does anything to actually benefit his situation? More specifically a google news search reveals "star wars kid" + first name is 280 and "star wars kid" + full name is 228. Only a small amount choose not to print his full name. In fact his full name goes back a full 7 years, it has been appearing in reliable sources since 2002.--Crossmr (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the RFC. I think we've formed a solid consensus. Arguments for inclusion of the name seem to either be attempts misdirection, ignore arguments for ommission, or outright contradict policy. Hopefully the FAQ on the top of the page and the non-archiving of this discussion will be enough to prevent this dispute from being re-opened in the future. Thanks to everyone who participated.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 09:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * AzureFury, kindly do not characterize my arguments (or those of others) in a patronizing or dismissive manner. You've every right to disagree, but you've no right to do that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And now that I've noticed, I'd like the RFC to run for the full term. Most of who's showed up already are the "usual suspects" here, let's let some other people look at it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seraphim, what do you think is going to change? There is a solid majority of editors here that have opposed inclusion of the name.  This RFC has been open for a week.  We've run every argument to its conclusion, and even gone through some extra arguments for good measure.  No progress is being made towards inclusion.  Further, this is (at least) the  second RFC you've been involved in on this page.  You know how this is going to play out.  Are you hoping that enough anons ignorant of wiki policy will respond to this RFC to change the proportion of the vote?  Perhaps you can find editors who are willing to ignore policy too.  Let's stop wasting everyone's time eh?  WP:Let it go.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 18:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we may get some additional views on the matter (someone else just came in favoring inclusion as well, as you might note.) There's always the possibility that consensus can change, and you're not just definitively correct here. I also oppose the addition of any "FAQ" that doesn't include the counterarguments as well, as it may seem to be a "Shut up, we'll never change this", even if that's not its intent. It may very well be that it doesn't get done this time around either, but if there's one thing I've learned around here, it's that what needs to happen eventually does. It just takes time. If you're as right as you think you are, what harm could be done by letting it run long enough to get some genuinely new eyes on the situation? This is a repeat performance for most of us here, not just myself. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * An FAQ prevents us from having to go through these same arguments again. Policy is clear on the matter.  Until policy changes, consensus on this page will not change.  I did note the other editors who came in favoring inclusion, that's who I was referring to when I said, "...editors who are willing to ignore policy..."  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 18:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I would also support continuing the RFC. I don't think it is the greatest idea for the initiator to declare it closed, procedure-wise. However, I'll point out that actually, based on an analysis of the page statistics, fully 50% of the contributors to this RFC (or more if you count me) are new editors to this topic. So, not this hasn't been "a repeat performance for most of us". --Slp1 (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought that 12 against inclusion and 3 for inclusion was enough to interpolate the results of a continued RFC. It seems to me that discussion has pretty much broken down and we're just tallying up more votes.  If someone feels strongly that more needs to be said here, feel free to repost the RFC.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 18:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Amazingly enough, adopting an "I'm right, you're wrong, we're done" mentality tends to lead to a discussion breakdown. You believe, as may others here do, that existing policy precludes use of the name. I believe, as many others also have, that it does not. When we disagree, we talk, we don't just say "Well you're wrong, so I'll declare the discussion over and slap a header on the page to discourage people from ever discussing it again." I'd also say it's difficult at best to interpret numbers from a conversation with the use of such attitudes, as it often discourages those on the opposing side from participating in it at all due to the high likelihood of being subjected to the same treatment. That's why we don't consider things to be votes. You've every right to disagree, as do I. You do not have the right to be snide, dismissive, or adopt a "high horse" position, as all of those are uncivil, and more importantly, all inevitably lead to a poor quality discussion that doesn't resolve anything. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy to be classed as 'one of the usual suspects' by you. Perhaps you could explain exactly what you mean by such comments, and who exactly you are referring to - a list of these people would be useful, rather than a snide general attack? It is somewhat ironic that you then go on to accuse editors of being 'snide, dismissive, or on some sort of high horse' in what appears to be a snide, dismissive, high-horsish kinda way. Have you considered you might actually be on your own 'high horse'? Ya know, pot/kettle/black and all that? It is more than disappointing that many of your recent contributions to this discussion have appeared to contain a personal element, and that you have failed to bring any *new* points during your many and varied contributions. Debate the issues, not the people. Little grape (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, I'm noticing the same things being said over and over again, within this discussion and compared with the previous RFC. Further, when we start talking about completely unrelated policies like WP:NPOV, I don't think this is a constructive use of anyone's time.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 01:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm, I'm including myself in the list of "the usual suspects" as it were, so it'd be rather silly for me to mean that as an attack&mdash;presume it says "those who have participated here before", that's all I really meant. And I don't see NPOV as unrelated at all. One of the core parts of NPOV is that we write from the viewpoint of sources, and do not substitute ours for theirs&mdash;and that when a dispute comes up over what should or should not be included, we settle that by, first and foremost, consulting the sources and following their lead. You may see that not to apply, but I see it as the core issue. If it weren't, I wouldn't be particularly worried about this. As to "debate the issue, not the people", I would like nothing better, but in order to do that, we'd need points to be addressed rather than dismissed. Shell was doing that above, and that I appreciate, but I think explaining why you think it's acceptable to use our own rather than a source viewpoint here would be more constructive than simply saying NPOV is irrelevant. NPOV is always relevant and always required, so if you can explain to me how it's neutral to substitute our own judgment for that of dozens of reliable sources, you'd have me convinced. As for me, if I have offended someone, please do call me on it&mdash;all that does is degrade the discussion, and I'm imperfect myself. I'm here to have a discussion, not attack anyone. My question here is "Is it neutral to present the article this way?" That's a yes or no question, but it's never an irrelevant question, as every article is required to be strictly NPOV. If you think the answer is yes, I'm interested to know why. I think the answer is no, and I've explained why. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We are neutrally adhering to policy.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 06:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, you're omitting information that is contained in hundreds of reliable sources because of your personal opinion that it might possibly be detrimental to the subject, yet I've seen zero evidence provided to back that up, and the policy part that it is linked to isn't particularly strong. The rest of my point is above--Crossmr (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What exactly would be required for a policy based argument to be strong? WP:BLP specifically mentions this situation.  It doesn't get any stronger than that.  Are you looking for the SWK to be listed in examples of application of that policy?  I think we have enough policy makers here that that could be arranged.  You think calling an argument weak is convincing anyone?  You're trying to include material in violation of policy because of your personal opinion that it won't be detrimental to the subject.  Oh wow!  Sure is easy to phrase anyone's editorial judgement in the form of an opinion!  We're all breaching WP:NPOV all the time!  Guess we'll just have to shut down Wikipedia since we have no editors without opinions.  This is a waste of time.  I think editors arguing for inclusion are just trying to WP:WIN.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 12:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have editors with opinions on everything. That's precisely the reason we have WP:NPOV, so that we don't wind up with editorials rather than articles. (I guarantee you we have plenty of editors who think the abortion article should say "Abortion is murder", and plenty of others who would have it say "Abortion is a woman's right." The article is written as it is due to NPOV, where we report on the various sides rather than taking one.) To the way I see it, this article is an implicit editorial&mdash;we're saying "All those reliable sources were (wrong|unethical|what have you) to include the name." When there's a dispute over neutrality, the first question should be "How do the sources do it?" Here, the overwhelming majority viewpoint of reliable sources is to include the name in articles about the phenomenon. I think, then, that to not include the name is a fringe viewpoint (one source did advocate it, listed above, but that's clearly the minority position in the matter), and for us to follow that gives that position undue weight. That every bit implicates NPOV. As I see it, the correct way to do this would be to use the above source to state that there has been criticism of the use of the name, but to follow the lead of the overwhelming majority of sources and do so ourselves. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No one has demonstrated that including his name would further any victimization. You've claimed it, as have others, but you've failed to provide any evidence that would show that it would in fact have such an effect. Given the ease and wide reporting of his name, including his name in the article wouldn't remotely make it any easier, nor sufficiently hinder anyone to warrant its omission. So no, part of the policy doesn't apply here, what applies here are the reliable sources and the fact that his full name has been reported in them for 7 full years. It is all well and good to claim these things but if you can't provide evidence to support how it would actually apply to this situation, claiming them doesn't amount to a hill of beans.--Crossmr (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

 * I don't think 'opinion' is needed here, as the rules seem fairly clear, the evidence is at hand, and the facts are clear if one looks. There is of course plenty of known evidence regarding this incident, the aftermath, and the person's feelings and mental condition. It is a fact that he successfully sued the people who took his private film and put it on the internet. It is a fact that he had to change school to one that offered counselling, it is a fact that he is on record as having declined numerous interview requests (I could not find a single interview with him anywhere this decade), and it is a fact that he and his family have stated that the incident and subsequent notoriety caused him psychological problems. I think it's fair to say that *every* editor here has agreed that he was traumatised at the time. Where I think we differ is that some editors feel that he (and forgive me for paraphrasing) 'must have got over it by now', therefore 'no damage will be caused by publishing his name'.
 * There is unfortunately no evidence whatsoever to support this view; I have looked for interviews with him that might say "yes it was horrible, but now I can laugh at it" or somesuch statement, but there's nothing. It is reasonable to suppose that journalists continue to seek interviews, even after ten years, and that there must be a good reason why no such interviews exist. We must conclude that either he cannot be found (perhaps has changed his name) or has refused all such interview requests. This lack of publicity rather indicates to me that he is *still* upset about the matter, and shuns all publicity. That was his position back in 2006 when he won the settlement, and we have no basis that I know of to suppose he has changed his mind in the interim. We should therefore take his last stated position as being his current position, rather than guess and hope that he's in some way changed his mind.
 * Ignoring, for a moment, what WP's rules are on this issue, for me the question is (again) 'does adding his name have the potential to cause yet more hurt and upset to the victim here?'. It was disappointing to read some of the responses to that question - if we can all agree the answer to the question is "maybe", then we might then agree that (for now) the name should stay out. I say 'for now', because if the person decides to come out and do lots of interviews, TV shows etc etc then I would agree he has probably got to the point of accepting his position and there would be little risk of further damage by including his name.
 * As for POV, well Seraph states early on that this was (and again I paraphrase) 'what made him leave WP', so clearly there's some emotion there which may be unhelpful in assessing the facts. And if you're going to downgrade the input of anyone in your group of 'usual suspects' then I imagine that by your self-stated rules you would grade my opinion much higher because I've never taken any interest in this issue before?
 * In conclusion; I don't think I'd change my view unless there was good evidence that the person had indeed 'got over it', or some new evidence came to light, so it's fairly pointless us making the same points to each other over and over...... Little grape (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you taking the time to lay out your position clearly and thoughtfully. I think knowing some of the "why"s is helpful to the discussion. The reason I did leave last time is because I effectively saw a group of editors who should know better supporting what still seems to me to be a naked POV push, and for no reason. I do not agree the answer to "Will it do more harm?" is "maybe", I believe the answer is no. The information is already public, and the damage is already done. It's like asking "Will pushing the detonator down a second time cause more explosions?" The answer to that question is "no", not "maybe". If what happened does still upset him, us including or not including the name won't change that. If he's moved on, us including or not including the name won't change that either. If he's changed his name, us including or not including the old name will make no difference, and we'd certainly not include the new one even if we knew it. If he hasn't, it's already publicly available, so including it or not including it makes no difference. In none of those scenarios do our actions change the outcome, so I see the answer as a clear "No, that's not possible in any actual scenario I can conceive of" to "Could this do further harm?" I would like to know under what hypothetical scenario our actions would have the potential of further harm&mdash;it's been asserted over and over here that it's true, but I do not see under what circumstance our action makes a bit of difference. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Two last points from me, as this discussion seems very circular to me too, and I don't mind if someone else gets the last word. NPOV policy requires us to present varying views/opinions published by reliable sources, fairly and proportionately. The question is here not how to summarize various views/opinions (and certainly not the "harm/no harm" views of editors mentioned above), but the inclusion or exclusion of an (undisputed) fact. Seraphimblade's NPOV argument appears predicated on naked original research and supposition about how he may or may not have moved on, and original research about journalistic practice, in which we would need to deduce the appropriate practice from newspapers, books etc. If accepted (which I don't believe it should), this would only leads into another can of OR worms; since we should presumably reflect current views of the subject, at what time point do we start measuring this? How often do we update our assessment of current practice? ....and in fact, if we use recent books and journals (generally considered higher quality reliable sources that should be our focus per WP:RS) the trend is strongly against mentioning his name (11-3 of relevant book refs); (18-6 of journals)%22+%22star+wars+kid%22+&as_publication=-googlebooks&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=2008&as_vis=0%22+%22star+wars+kid%22+&as_publication=-googlebooks&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=2008&as_vis=0
 * Crossmr suggests that we need to prove that including his name would further the victimization. Frankly, I think it is obvious enough to hardly need saying. But as it happens, and as mentioned above in my first post, the one reliable source we have that specifically addresses this issue supports the view that the decision not to include his name here is an ethical and moral one as preventing ongoing harm. . Zittrain's view is also reported on, approvingly, in this Forbes article. Can you cite anything other than your own opinions, to support your notion that no harm is being done by naming him?
 * As with most things, things can change. As Little Grape points out, if in the future, the SWK writes a book about his experiences, gives interviews etc under his real name, my opinion will change. For the moment, however, I think that the both WP:BLP and WP:CONSENSUS policies clearly and strongly support the ongoing exclusion of his name.  Discuss on as you wish, but in my case at least, please don't assume that a lack of a response means consent--Slp1 (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I can. The fact that his name is not under a publication ban, its in one of the sources linked from the article and is trivial to find. If the name was under a publication ban, difficult to find, or extracted through original research it doesn't belong. But that isn't the case here. The case is quite simply that his name has been in the news for 7 years and continues to be printed today. If anyone wanted to victimize him further they wouldn't need nor benefit from wikipedia's help. Quite simply put, including his name would do nothing to further any victimization, as I already pointed out. It would not make it any easier to find his name, nor does its omission do anything to hinder anyone who wants to find it. Unless you can demonstrate that inclusion of the name makes it easier to find, or omitting it makes it harder to find (and no, the claim that -1 websites out of the thousands that already report it does that won't cut it) it isn't covered by this policy. There isn't even a maybe there. His full name and star wards kid (with quotes) shows up on almost 3000 websites according to google. Its inclusion on wikipedia would have zero impact on anybody's ability to find that out. The fact that he regrets airing the film doesn't mean that his name being included on this article would further victimization. That is the point here. If zittrain wants to come here and argue the case in regards to our policy he's welcome to, but even though he supports the decision not to print it, that article doesn't do anything to demonstrate how the omission on wikipedia actually helps him. Can you actually cite anything that would demonstrate how including his name would actually further victimization or do you have only your personal opinion?--Crossmr (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That argument sounds a lot like "other stuff exists". What other sources do or do not do editorially really doesn't have any bearing on what we've decided to do here.  Its quite possible that other media outlets don't have the same standards for living people that Wikipedia does.  As a whole, Wikipedia editors decided that people notable for one event should be covered in context of that event.  One question that I don't feel has been sufficiently answered is what encyclopedic value does the name add to the article?  Does it lend context to the video or surrounding meme?  Does it tell us more about the video or give us any information (other than itself) that we wouldn't have known otherwise? As for the questions about harm, I assume everyone's read the harassment and lawsuit section and the sources given there?  It seems fairly conclusive to me that real harm was done; the fact that he didn't go after every media outlet and instead went after the initial source doesn't convince me that repeating his name in connection with the incident doesn't have the potential to be harmful. Either way though, we're speculating and I'm fairly certain that the community (and the Foundation) has repeatedly indicated that we should err on the side of caution.  Shell   babelfish 05:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a widely reported fact associated with this incident. You could pick apart tons of facts, sentences and things from many articles and ask how they benefit. Otherstuffexists is an AfD argument, I don't think we're having an AfD discussion here. the Threshold for inclusion of an article is different than that on individual pieces of information in the article. In terms of context yes, since he is constantly mentioned by name the association of his name with this incident is in fact important to provide context. Were his name reported sparsely or for a short time, it would provide no context. But the fact that his name is still reported in full 7 years later demonstrates that it is in linked with this incident. With that in mind and the fact that no one has been able to demonstrate how exactly its inclusion here would victimize him further, I can't see how its omission is inline with policy.--Crossmr (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Little Grape, would appreciate it if you didn't mischaracterize my opinion. I don't know if he's moved on or not, my opinion is that it does not matter if he has or not, because we can't do harm in any scenario anyway. I said once that I hope he has, and that's been made into a straw man argument as if that's in any way germane to the point I'm making. My argument is that not once has anyone stated "Alright, here are some hypothetical circumstances where us excluding the name would actually help, and us including it would actually hurt." I included why I believe that, whether or not he's moved on, whether or not it still bothers him, whether or not he's changed its name, our inclusion or exclusion of the name can't do any actual good or harm, because what's done is already done and what's public is already public. No one's yet addressed that argument, or provided any hypothetical situation where we can make any actual, realistic difference in this situation. Does anyone have such a circumstance in mind? I would presume someone must, since there are such strong assertions of harm, but since I must be missing why there is any real difference in any given scenario based on what we do, I'd sure like to hear it myself. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly we can't put the cat back in the box; Wikipedia is never the place to "right wrongs", but, this is different than our responsibility not to perpetuate something we can clearly understand was harmful to the subject. The community doesn't cover individuals in detail when they are notable for a single event.  There are other cases of minors who were famous as a hacker or other media worthy event where the subject's real name is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article regardless of whether or not it can be found elsewhere.  I may have missed things over the past couple of days, but was there ever an answer to why the name was so important to include?  Other than the name itself, what would we learn by it? Shell   babelfish 05:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Crossmr's mention of context is a very important consideration. Some other considerations would be the creation of a redirect from the name to the event article (which is pretty standard for "event" articles where we don't have a full bio on the subject), and that "who" is one of the Five Ws that should be answered in order for any type of report or article to be considered complete. That's pretty clear in the way that the article reads very awkwardly from its exclusion, and an awkward, incomplete article impedes a reader's understanding. Maximizing understanding of what we write about is and should be our core mission. I'm not suggesting we write a full bio here&mdash;we don't have anywhere near enough for that, and that's what one event does and should preclude. But since the likelihood of further harm being actually done is extremely remote, I don't think the standard should be that the name would be earth shattering to merit inclusion. It would be helpful and useful to readers in understanding the situation and performing additional research if desired, and the redirect would be useful in terms of finding the correct article. Without that, the reader may be stuck using Google and finding resources of considerably lower quality than a neutral encyclopedia article, or would find this article and then we've protected exactly nothing anyway. I think minimizing harm should be a consideration, but in this case, it seems that we're trying to shut the barn door after the horse has not only bolted but made its way across most of the world. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)