Talk:Star Wars Kid/Archive 5

Why Not Named
Why is he not named and why are there no references to any of the things he said to the media? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.84 (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This has been debated at great length, multiple times. There is a slim majority of editors that believe that the most important policy regarding the mention of the kid's name is WP:Biographies of Living Persons.  In particular, this policy states, "...This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 04:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was wondering the same thing. I could understand not providing libelous information or things that are not conducive to a biography.  However, seeing as how it is valid, if not pertinent, information to a biography, and seeing as this is a biography, it would seem that it should be required information (I find it strange that a biography anywhere would not actually have the name of the person it is of.)  Wikipedia, nor it's editors, should censor information simply because someone doesn't like it (if I recall, there is a Wikipedia policy that states that Wikipedia is not censored.)  Almost every Wikipedia biography of a current political figure has a criticism section that could be considered by some to be controversial and damaging to the person.  As do many others of athletes, actors, commentators, pundits, entertainers, other memes, etc.  Aside from all of this, being that the kid's family filed a lawsuit in court, it is all public information and therefor Wikipedia would only be relaying information (which is all it really does anyway.)  I'm sorry if I am only repeating statements made previously, but it seems pretty cut and dry to me.  It's rather silly to not put a very important piece of information in an article simply because it might hurt someones feelings.  Especially since the videos are out there reguardless of whether or not we know his name.  I mean, is the idea of Wiki readers knowing his name going to really be that much more of a problem to him? 98.215.128.112 (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are repeating things that have been said before. I will repeat the responses.  You say that because his name is so available, it won't be a bigger problem for him.  On the other hand, because his name is so available, it is no problem for people who want to know it to find it.  Take a look at WP:CENSOR, "Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed."  Including his name is a clear violation of WP:BLP.  Just because it is factual does not necessarily mean it is worthy of inclusion in the article.  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  You mention another argument, specifically "because X article does it, so must this article."  We have a page for exactly that, WP:WAX.  Every article is unique, and policies are guidelines.  Take a look at WP:COMMON and WP:IGNORE.  We must use common sense.  Most editors do not see that anything is gained by including his name except our claim to lack of censorship, but do see that we would be assisting in his victimization.  More editors believe the latter is more important, and that is why his name is absent.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 02:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand all of what you are saying and it would seem that a majority of the arguments seem zero sum. All but the censorship part, which seems in favor of including his name. WP:BLP Does make a mention of when not to use names, but the cases in which it mentions (as far as I can tell) are only those related to the person the article is about, not the main subject themselves. I also understand that little can be gained by adding his name, but can not that argument be used on virtually half the information on this site? I mean, how many people use wiki to find gobs of useless information and trivia? Also, my point about comparing other articles was not simply "well, that article did it, so why not this on?" It was more like; Every article on a war gives the dates of that war, every article of a political figure gives his alliance, every article on a plant gives its genus and species, every comic book character's article gives the name of the company that owns its rights, etc. Every biography article on here (at least of the hundreds of them I have read) gives the birth name of the articles subject. Now, I understand special circumstances, but in response to your last point, I ask a question; How does wikipedia displaying his name attribute to his victimization? Forgive me if I seem hardheaded and argumentative, it is not my intent. I truly do wish to know and understand the processes on wikipedia and this seems like a fine line issue and a good place for me to start to understand the intricacies.


 * Ok, let me respond with equivalent rhetoric. I've read and understood your arguments, but they are mostly zero sum.  Therefore, I will respond to the weakest of points.  Since this article is covered by the BLP policy, we can't include any information we so choose.  And saying WP:WAX in a different way does not mean you are not using WP:WAX.  Read the policies I've quoted for you.  WP:BLP is clear that the name should say out.  WP:CENSOR specifically states that it has a lower priority than WP:BLP.  You're making the same argument as every other ethicless media outlet that assisted in his original victimization, "since other people have done it, there is no harm if we do it to."  You are correct that this is a fine line issue.  I've said that the majority of editors favor exclusion of his name.  It was a slim majority, but a consistent majority nonetheless.  There are Wikipedians who agree with you, that his name should be included.  But considering this has been debated several times, and inclusion has been rejected several times, I think we should leave it at that, rather than call for another RFC.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 07:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * But is this article even a biography? It seems to me it is just an article about an internet phenomenon/meme. From that perspective, his name is pretty much irrelevant. This is not an article about the kid, it's about the video. If you add his name, then WP:BLP issues arise. zzymyn (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you check the top of this page, you will see that it is labeled as a biography. Regardless of that, the identity of any person involved in a situation or event is not just relevant, but pertinent as far as collecting information on that event. Especially when considering that this is an encyclopedia and that it's primary objective is to give as much basic and relevant information as possible regardless of weather or not it is important as far as every day facts. This article is not about "the video." This is an article about a video, the ensuing videos based on the original video, its mention in multiple medias, the person involved, the court case that followed, and pretty much all other information revolving around the person that the article is based on. 98.215.128.112 (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So, I check back in after a while, and I see that the same "WTF?" question is getting asked. I'm still going to ask it too. Almost every source used to write this article uses the name. We don't second guess reliable sources, we mirror them. They, all with their professional legal and ethics departments, have almost every one determined that use of the name is ethical and legal. When you're writing about someone, and you can verify the name, you use it. That's a basic part of anything about a person. There are very few exceptions to that, and simple embarrassment is not one of them.
 * All that being the case, the sheer number of times that even anonymous editors have come and asked this question, many clearly in good faith, should tell us that we're not doing this right. When you say a "slim majority" favors exclusion, have you counted all the anonymous editors who have bothered to stop by the talk page to say "Hey, this doesn't seem right"? It's unusual for that to happen, and for every time that happens there are probably dozens to hundreds of people who wonder but don't want or know how to say anything about it. The name is not a secret, and it's certainly not unverifiable. BLP prohibits the violation of privacy, true, but the name at this point is by no means private.
 * I've edited anonymously for a while, and was considering coming back, but to see the same old falsehoods get trotted out here is rather discouraging. In reality, editor after editor (including but not limited to anon readers) have come here to ask "What's the deal with this?", and believed it wrong, while the same few support exclusion and claim they're the "majority" or that BLP supports them. I strongly doubt at this point, if we counted all of those who have supported vs. all against, that those against are anywhere near a majority. And they shouldn't be, because they're incorrect. BLP provides for exclusion of privacy violations or unverifiable information. The name is neither one, it is public knowledge (for better or worse), and it is certainly verifiable through plenty of highly credible sources. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A debate about anons supporting and opposing inclusion is impossible as we have know way of knowing how many people read the article, acknowledged the absence of the name and did not add to the discussion page. Optional feedback always has a negative bias.  I see that you really don't respect my opinion since you're already referring to it as "falsehoods" so put up an RFC if you wish and we can vote down inclusion a fourth time.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 16:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You also do not seem to respect our opinion as you referred to what I said as rhetorical arguments, when in reality, I was simply trying to understand the process and was having trouble seeing how your arguments were the optimum outcome of following Wikipedia guidelines. Although I am not an article editor, I do try to contribute to discussions on talk pages. And on this one, it would seem that there has been an abundance of reasons, good ones at that, to include the name. You, the lone voice opposing inclusion in this thread thus far, only seem to come up with one shaky reason; Wikipedia would be one more website among thousands to reveal his name and this could possibly (somehow) further attribute to his victimization. That just doesn't seem like a good enough reason to combat all the other reasons, like the fact that this is an encyclopedia. Also, one more point that I'm not sure has been made in the past; He used school equipment for every single aspect of the vid. School camera, school film, school golf ball retriever, etc. And in the end, all he did was look kinda silly for swinging the thing around. Big deal. All the victimization came from his peers. I would venture to guess that the press revealing his name added nominal amounts of ridicule in comparison what he had already faced. I think that most kids had to deal with some sort of bullying in school, but if some guy from Illinois knows their name, does it really make it any worse? And if so, then we should remove the entire article under the same grounds since it is so easy to find his name anyway. 98.215.128.112 (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm probably wasting my time responding to a "no, you are" level comment, but there's a few things I feel I should point out. This is the dictionary.com definition of rhetoric: "the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory."  Not sure how you came to be offended by that, I guess you were looking for a way to establish that I had been equally condescending.  This is the second time you've tried to undermine my argument simply by saying that it is weak.  You think I am the lone voice of opposition, yet had you been watching the history of either the talk page or the article itself, you will see multiple established editors preserving the absence of his name.  Really, I am the most generous, spending my time to explain to you why we've maintained the article this way.  Let me sum up my arguments for you one time.  If you want to take the pure policy approach, then trivially the name should be excluded, per WP:BLP and WP:CENSOR.  If you want to take a common sense approach, the name should still be excluded on the grounds that "everyone has done it" is not a refutation of immorality.  I will say no more.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 05:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There is simply no reason not to include his name. WP:CENSOR could cover this, but it's essentially a case of ignoring the facts over a pointless fear of hurt feelings. Wikipedia should include the facts if they're relevant, and the idea that somehow identifying someone who's name is public knowledge is against policy is ludicrous. The biggest problem with the article now is the unsourced, not the sourced. Friginator (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm replacing the phrase "the student" with his real name. Censoring his name is ridiculous, especially when it's from his own biography page. I'm surprised that no one has changed it since it was added last year, but it's frankly one of the dumbest editorial decisions I've seen on Wikipedia. Friginator (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC) (and modified per BLP by Slp1)


 * See WP:BLP.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 23:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so please forgive me for being a latecomer to the party, but I still have some questions about this issue. I have read and re-read the archives, so hopefully I haven't missed much, but I fail to see an actual WP:CONSENSUS. There are obviously two conflicting policies here: WP:BLP1E for exclusion and WP:NOTCENSORED for inclusion (and as mentioned in the FAQ, this seems to indicate that BLP takes precedence). Per BLP1E, there is no biographical article - only this one about the event. What I fail to see is how including his name would rise to the level of actual WP:HARM (which was rejected as being official BLP policy for being too strict). I also note that "Presumption in favor of privacy" quoted in answer A1 in the FAQ is referring to "including every detail", which unless I'm missing something doesn't include a person's name. I have also seen input from Jimbo and various editors indicating that BLP1E wins out here but I didn't see any firm reasoning as to why, I only saw WP:POLLING (I apologize if I missed any substantive discussion as the topic keeps getting rehashed with different editors and slightly different wording). Any input as to these issues would be greatly appreciated from someone who has been hanging around here longer. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The kid sued to keep his name private. Obviously he thinks it was harmful to release it.  In including his name we would be assisting in the prolonging of his victimization, which WP:BLP1E specifically forbids.  Anyway, in our most recent rehashing of this debate, there was a solid majority, something like 12 to 5 IIR.  An issue like this will never be unanimous.  Anyway, WP:NOTVOTE is a nice policy, in theory, but with this many editors involved, it inevitably comes down to voting, as all big issues do.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 22:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your reply. Now I just feel the urge to tweak WP:BLP1E so that it's clear that it applies to any PII, and not just "including every detail". VernoWhitney (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I just counted the !votes from the RFC section below and it's even more in favor of omitting the name than you recall: 11 for exclusion and 3 for inclusion. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm out
Really, this type of thing is the reason I ended up leaving. When did we start "voting" on what sources do or don't say? When did any talk page discussion become a vote, or a shoutdown? When did the opinion of anonymous editors stop mattering, because they can't strictly be counted? Can we say the number for inclusion can't be accurately counted, since they face derision as "immoral" if they dare to disagree, and many, seeing such a discussion, will quietly move along even if they do disagree with those engaging in such name-calling and incivility? You have every right to disagree, but you don't have any right to be rude and condescending, or to call those who disagree with you "immoral" as though such is a foregone conclusion. You like to quote policies that I don't even believe are relevant (BLP protects against private or poorly sourced information being placed into an article, the information here is public and available from highly reliable sources), but civility and refraining from attacking others personally applies to every discussion, every time. And we most certainly can quantify a rough number of anons who have identified the exclusion of the name as problematic. Take a look through the archives. How many articles have that level of anonymous editor participation on the talk page? I imagine you could find me some, I doubt you could find me many. And most of them come here puzzled to ask the same question-"Where's the name?", and receive a response that's patronizing and dismissive at best and rude more often than not. Of course, those editors wouldn't see or participate in an RFC, more likely than not. But of course we could canvass a "vote", much like GeorgeWilliamHerbert did last time around. But that's not why you'd want to do it that way and ignore what's already transpired, is it? Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Q. Where's the name? A. In the first source. If we wanted to fully censor the name, we would take down citations to sources that mention the name. But as it stands, anyone who wants to see the name of Star Wars Kid can look at the first 100 words of the first source that the article cites. The sources are doing a good job of keeping the name up; Wikipedia need not duplicate that effort ;-) --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why would we bother to write Wikipedia at all? Icewedge (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. BLP doesn't remotely apply here because its been repeatedly reported by many reliable news sources. Even if the actions were taken by someone else, trying to hide his name does nothing and amounts to censorship. If no one was reporting his name and some fringe site found it, it might be a BLP issue, but that isn't the case here.--Crossmr (talk) 08:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I really hate to drag this up again, but it may be possible that could become famous enough on his own that it warrants his own biography. There has been significant (even mainstream) news hits for him in June, 2010. See &hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=pWa&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=iv&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wn. Apparently he's the president of the Patrimoine Trois-Rivières, and this has beens covered in the Globe and Mail and Le Nouvelliste, and [Radio Canada], along with the usual suspects of nerd and geek new sites. While not notable enough for this own bio yet, it's possible it could happen in the short term as either a politician or even academic. Either way should it happen would we be censoring his real life biography of the Star Wars kid material? Would there be two different articles about this one person? Right now this article as it stands makes no sense - he name is widely associated with the meme - as this is the age where the information is a click away I don't really see how Wikipedia is protecting this guy from the incident if it's newsworthy enough to be picked up by national newspaper with a weekly readership of 935 000 eight years after the event. I doubt I'm going to change anyone's minds on this, but from my viewpoint, censoring his name out of the article, even though a thousand reliable sources could probably confirm it doesn't make sense. --Yankees 76 Talk 22:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Patrimoine Trois-Rivières, the article was created at the same time as creating an article for the kid, and then it got deleted for lack of notability (basically, not fullfilling WP:CORP). By the logic of Wikipedia, the kid had now become the president of a non-notable organization, so his own article was deleted in turn. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, I saw that - my post is more pre-emptive. Obviously is treading down the path of possibly becoming a public figure - and while the company is he president of may be non-notable now, that could always change and it may be a stepping stone for him to run for public office, which could bring up the issue of whether or not his Star Wars kid notoriety should no longer be censored from both this article or his own. --Yankees 76 Talk 13:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the sort of reason I despair of Wiipedia. Too many editors all with their own little power and ego trips insisting that they are right (and I don't mean you, Seraphimblade). It's obvious that someone here feels they own this area and will do whatever (s)he can to keep his/her view dominant. Good luck Wikipedia - it's no wonder universities tell their students not to get information here (and certainly *never* to cite a page here!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.159.250 (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Going here yet starting lame arguments in neutrality, ruining all zeal again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.0.141 (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Nominate for deletion: This article sucks without pictures
Seriously, what's the point in even mentioning it if nobody can see even a still frame from the video? This is 2013, we ought to be able to at least spare room for an animated GIF or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaphraud (talk • contribs)


 * Please see our non-free content policy. We don't just put in non-free images just because. --M ASEM (t) 04:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Name issue revisited: He's out there connecting himself to the incident as an adult
While I understood the consensus of protecting a minor, this has finally crossed over to Star Wars Kid talking about his life as the meme and the results and using it for public relations to talk about online bullying, etc. Just see the following examples, one of which was published this week in Maclean's, a major Canadian magazine.
 * 10 years later, ‘Star Wars Kid’ speaks out, macleans.ca, May 9, 2013
 * ‘Star Wars Kid’ goes on a media blitz 10 years later, Canada.com, May 9, 2013
 * After Lawsuits and Therapy, Star Wars Kid is Back, Vice.com, 2011

Is there any compelling argument for keeping his name out of the article anymore when he's no longer hiding as he was several years ago? --Bobak (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that he's clearly making the connection himself and both 2013 reports are reliable, so BLP issues about the name connection are no longer an issue. Assuming this is eventually added, I would make it clear that he avoiding the connection for years and only recently has come out to affirm he is the SWK but using that as motivation speech topics. --M ASEM (t) 16:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that the 2013 mentions are reliable, but not the 2011 probably. He is now publicly making the connection as a adult, and that makes a major difference. Though I realize nobody is suggesting this, I'll just preemptively say that I would disagree with any suggestion of renaming the article.  The article is still about the meme so the mention of his real name does not need to be made prominently and I agree with Masem that the anti-bullying context of the disclosure needs to be made clear.Slp1 (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this article is the meme, not the person. No renaming or merging should be done, since before today, the person made himself notable for other reasons to have a separate article. --M ASEM (t) 17:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, renaming would definitely be overkill. However—and I say this as a strong WP:AVOIDVICTIM advocate—if he's willing to acknowledge it now, I see no reason to not state his name in the article. He's booked on Tosh.0 soon, which is about as clear as you can get in terms of willingly putting yourself in the public sphere. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  07:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As per this discussion, I will incorporate the name, Ghyslain Raza, into the article. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, if Andy Dufresne keeps writing the state, I wonder what other meme identities will be revealed.

We should unprotect this page
Now that the article explicitly names the protagonist, Ghyslain Raza, there is no reason to semi-protect it. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We'll still need to watch out for other BLP aspects, since this would qualify, but that's a reasonable suggestion (same rationale as to getting the Raza redirect restored). --M ASEM (t) 18:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have unprotected the article. This is pretty old news, and I don't anticipate many future problems. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Dates not adding up
He is categorized as a "1988 birth", but the article says the clip was made in 2002 when he was 15. He could not possibly have been born in 1988 to be 15 in 2002. Business Insider affirms he was 15 in 2002, but I couldn't find a birth year in there. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)