The last several days worth of edits at Lukas Ridgeston, Tim Hamilton (porn star), and the March 14 entry for Johan Paulik raise serious BLP issues. Would someone review them please? David in DC (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I will address them. When an actor's real name is reliably sourced and widely disseminated it may be placed on the article. Addresses and phone numbers should not be placed on the article. Repeated removal of well sourced and widely disseminated names should be regarded, in my opinion, as vandalism. John celona (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the BLP policy of presumption in the favor of privacy, especially when it doesn't help the WP project in any way. BLP policy states that respecting the basic human dignity of the subject is essential, and other editors have noted that "outing" these people's birth names (it's ok to use their public stage name) assists in stalking and potential danger to the subjects. There is no real benefit and there is real potential for harm. This is straight from BLP Policy: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated OR HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY CONCEALED **which is the case for these subjects**, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context" --Jkp212 (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This surely must not be the first time such matters have been discussed on Wikipedia. Does anyone have pointers to previous threads? I could imagine making the answer depend on whether a large, mainstream publication had revealed the persons' real name. If the real name has already appeared in the New York Times or Newsweek then keeping it out of the article is probably not worth the effort, and has little privacy value. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As you well know the phrase OR HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY CONCEALED which you so helpfully capitalise is immediately followed by AS IN CERTAIN COURT CASES. Since there are no court cases and the actors names are VERY widely disseminated they belong in the article. They are actors which is as much not a "non-public" occupation as can be imagined. John celona (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The names have not been mentioned in any large, mainstream publication and are NOT widely disseminated. Widely is certainly more than 5 obscure gay porn blog sources for Tim Hamilton (the interview in question published twice!) or one source only for Lukas Ridgeston plus about 14 gay porn listings with no real value at all. For Lukas Ridgeston the name has been intentionally disclosed in the review of that gay magazine. This has been done against the expressed wish of the actor and production company Bel Ami. AS IN CERTAIN COURT CASES is NOT a concluding enumeration but an example. Even with English not being my native language I can read the difference. So no need for a court case here either. There is no real benefit in publishing the names and no significant loss of context in not doing so. On the contrary revealing the names in this or in any future case violates the WP principles mentioned by Jkp212. Putting them back in repeatedly should be regarded, in my opinion, as vandalism. Just as John celona said "an actor's real name ... may be placed on the article". But it does not have to be placed, which is in accordance with the BLP policy of presumption in the favor of privacy. (Jamesbeat (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"As in certain court cases" is one example of where a name has been intentionally concealed. Actors such as these who choose to have stages names are also intentionally concealing their birth name, which they have every right to do. --Jkp212 (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Brandy Alexandre page is the model. Please look at the code. If you hit "edit this page", the first thing you see at the top is code from Jimmy Wales asking that her birth name not be revealed. Need a better authority than that? David in DC (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to say User:EdJohnston makes a good point. Where is the prior discussion on this? I don't see any for Brandy Alexandre, even on the talk page. Was it archived? What about for Hamilton or Ridgeston or any of the others? Viewing the prior consensus on the subject would be most helpful in this discussion. Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What it actually says is "As a courtesy while we discuss the issues surrounding this article". In other words-temporary. Plus, what wikipedia regulation says Luke Ford is not a reliable source. He is on dozens of other pages. provide the source please. as you have been told on many other issues: this is Wiki-pedia not David-pedia. John celona (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For everything that needs saying, read the archive here: It sets forth the views of Anon E. Mouse, Jimbo, and SavvyCat (Ms. Alexandre) as fully as necessary. About outing porn actor's names AND about the reliability of Luke Ford as a source. David in DC (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I know that a number of the participants in WP:P* (myself included) routinely pull out uncited names from porn star articles on simple WP:BLP issues... what if the name's wrong? And there are other stars besides Brandy who have had their names pulled from the article at the star's own request... Sasha Grey is one I remember offhand. Beyond that, the principles that John Celona mentions above ("an actor's real name is reliably sourced and widely disseminated") apply, and no, IMDB is not a reliable source for the name! Now if we can only get all the various editions to follow that last point; I know of one porn star complaining about a foreign language Wiki that has their real name on it with IMDB as a "source", and her parents were getting hassled on it as a result of it (it's Katja Kassin & the German version)... unfortunately the Wiki in question doesn't seem to be responding to her complaints. Tabercil (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Some insight into User:John celona's attitude towards privacy and harm reduction may be gleaned from a Deletion Review a year ago, specifically this comment, this comment and this comment. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Outing people is bad. I dealt with porn star names (e.g. Tawnee Stone, Jordan Capri) way back in the dark ages before BLP even existed and even then we all agreed that Wikipedia should not be the primary venue for locating information such as this. If the mainstream media has published someone's identity, then okay, but we shall not rely on the blog of the guy who claims to have gone to high school with the actress. Nor shall we rely on the name that appears on the obscure trademark filing for the "character" (yes, this seriously came up). If you are going to publish information that may have real world consequences for someone then you ought to have sources that are at least as reliable and as visible as Wikipedia itself before doing so. Dragons flight (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If we change this policy we need to change it universally, or not at all, and have admin deletes of history of reference to birth names. --BenBurch (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This is going to come up repeatedly in the future. In the Brandy Alexandre case, some editors seemed to think that we were just applying the reliable source policy to birth names, and only including those that were reliably attested. But the above discussion tells me that some editors *still* don't want real names included even when published in sources that would be accepted as reliable for other purposes. If this is the case, we should know. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This is really disturbing to me. Someone really needs to explain to User:John celona that Wikipedia isn't just a place that reports every lurid detail about sexually related articles. He's strongly argued for the inclusion of all material related to underage sex crime victims multiple times (as evidenced by CalendarWatcher) and now he's trying to disseminate private details about porn actors because marginally reliable sources (and frankly some unreliable sources) report them. Ugh. No. If he wants to start a wiki of his own that exploits these people he is welcome to do so, but I don't think that kind of attitude is appropriate here. AniMate 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that a name attested by a reliable source should still be suppressed at the request of the subject? We need to know if you are asking for a policy change or not. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say a policy change is in order. If someone's lone claim to fame is pornography and they want to reclaim some of their privacy, then absolutely we should remove their real name. In fact, I would argue that more often than not, real names shouldn't be used unless they are widely used by the mainstream media. For that to happen, I'm thinking most porn stars would have to have some other claim to fame besides having sex on film. AniMate 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with a policy change. There is no gain to "outing" people like this. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So let's throw an hypothetical example out to see how this proposed change works... say Savanna Samson comes to us and says "I don't want my real name used in the article". If you look at the article, there is a reference for it which points directly to an article in the New York Times, which is probably one of the more reliable sources out there and also one of the more visible ones (the third highest circulation according to List of newspapers in the United States by circulation). So... do we pull the name or not? Tabercil (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case I would say probably not, though that would ultimately depend on why she wanted her name removed. The argument for removal of real names is that these people use pseudonyms to obscure their identities. While she will always be better known as Savanna Samson, I think it's clear with that interview and her other projects that she has no intention of obfuscating her identity anymore. AniMate 21:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I lean toward yes. We take her birth name out, but use the NYT article as a source for some other fact, if it backs one. NYT has it's editorial discretion and we have ours. Ours protects the privacy (and safety) of living persons more than theirs does. That's not censorship, it's editing.

I can imagine a case where the answer is no. If Savanna ever kills someone on a porn set, the names are gonna be linked. Or if she testifies before Congress, under her birth name, in support of branding strippers and porn stars' with a Scarlet X. But we ought to set the bar pretty high in favor of omitting birth names. David in DC (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My own personal thinking is probably not to remove the name in this instance. Why? Because of the visibility and reliability of the source of the name, unless it can be shown to be in error, removing the name would be akin to closing the barn door long after the horse has disappeared over the horizon. However, if the source was much thinner, then I can the name being removed. However, we should clearly have a requirement that the real name must be sourced; I know the the guidelines for WP:P* (which perhaps is the work group closest to the subject) are clear as seen here. Tabercil (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because something is verifiable and well sourced, doesn't mean we include it in articles. WP:BLP often trumps reliable sources and verifiability. AniMate 21:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's a policy change, what is the limitation on it? Any subject of a biography can ask for their real name to be excluded, no matter how well known it is? EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Is it specifically laid out in policy? No, but there is a presumption in favor of the privacy of marginally notable people. Exact birth dates are routinely removed for the marginally notable (and that is policy), and (generally speaking) porn stars real names aren't very well known. Looking through the links supplied by CalendarWatcher above, you'll see a case where two minors who were victims of sex crimes had the majority of personal information about them removed from the encyclopedia. All of the information about them was ridiculously well sourced to major and undeniably reliable news agencies. Still, the information was removed and the articles redirected (if I'm not mistaken). I think the removal of real names is definitely up for interpretation, but in the case of a porn star with very few or no other accomplishments... I think we should remove without prejudice unless a valid argument can be made to include them. AniMate 22:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm agreeing that we could follow a rule where such names are sometimes omitted. I just need someone to give the scope of the rule so that we don't need a lengthy discussion every time the subject comes up again. If the existing policy is too vague in this area we could ask for the policy to be made specific. You could even ask for a change in policy that is limited to porn stars, to avoid widening the debate too much. (Comparing to the example given by AniMate, porn stars don't seem to have much in common with minors who are the victims of sex crimes). EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right that there is nothing in common between the two, and I hope I didn't imply that there was. I'm not sure that there is a clear cut line that can be determined other than saying "err on the side of privacy". Savanna Samson, for instance, has clearly made an attempt to market herself to a more mainstream audience outside of porn. The same goes for Jenna Jameson and Jeff Stryker. Tim Hamilton, Johan Paulik, and Lukas Ridgeston don't seem to have any encyclopedic accomplishments outside of pornography. There is no benefit to revealing their real names, and there could in fact be great harm to them in doing so. AniMate 02:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it back to Paulik, Ridgeston and Hamiliton. It's poor judgment to out any of these three. We need the opposite kind of rule than the one EdJohnston suggests above. We need a rule for when a porn actor's birth name should be included. The presumption should be against inserting these birth names, except in the most extraordinary of circumstance. People act in porn under assumed names for reasons of privacy and safety. We should honor the request for safety and privacy that acting under a stage name clearly requests. David in DC (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that David in DC's idea would leave us with a clear rule to follow. I like AniMate's last comment because I can deduce a rule from it. How about:

• Give the real names of porn stars only when the names are reliably sourced, and only when the stars are noted for some activities outside of pornography.

This would cause us to include the real names of Jenna Jameson and Jeff Stryker, and omit the names of Lukas Ridgeston, Tim Hamilton (porn star) and Johan Paulik. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the first clause I have no problems with, and the second one shouldn't be a problem because anything that'll cause them to be mentioned by a reliable source will most likely be for outside of porn. Tabercil (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I like both clauses too, and I personally feel it's essential to include the second part so that there is clarity on that point. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Give the real names of porn stars only when the names are reliably sourced, and only when the stars are noted for some activities outside of pornography.

This seems to be a popular and rational choice. Are there any objections? If there are, how would they be beneficial to building an encyclopedia? AniMate 07:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The "objection" is very simple. If an actor's name is widely disseminated and reliably sourced it should be in the article. If one can google the actor's stage name along with the words "real name", "birth name", etc. and come up with a reliable source on the first page than the proverbial cat has escaped the bag. John celona (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Your "objection" is of course not as simple as you try to tell again and again. It makes a BIG difference if you read a WP article about people in the porn business, which includes the real name, or if you read the same article without the real name and having to do an additional Google search on your own, which most people have no interest in at all except they have some ill intentions. As said above regarding Lukas Ridgeston and Tim Hamilton widely disseminated and reliably sourced are different from what Google is coming up with for both cases. To avoid any future discussions about this IMO the second part of the statement above in italic is very crucial. (Jamesbeat (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC))

It's important for WP to take a stand that, as many of the other editors, have mentioned above, WP should not be the primary vehicle for the spreading of this information unless there is a special reason (like activities outside of porn).. In Celona's example, he mentioned a situation where someone is actively seeking out a birth name of the actor's name (like a stalker); however, most people will come to the WP article not actively seeking out the actor's birth name, and therefore WP becomes the primary vehicle for the spread of this information. In other words, it's more complicated than just being reliably sourced, as Animate points out above. Secondly, without taking a firm stand you open up the door for irresponsible edits, such as this one by Celona [6] where the "reliable source" he cited was a porn site. --Jkp212 (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Widely disseminated? Here is a google search for Tim Hamilton with the "real" name you added to his article. John, you need to understand that we have to edit responsibly. It is something you seem to fight every time someone tells you that information isn't appropriate for the encyclopedia. You fought bitterly for all possible information to be written about two minors who were victims of sex crimes. You really have to start understanding WP:BLP and that when it is applied is not censorship but editors acting responsibly. AniMate 16:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Both clauses make sense to me. Responsible editorial discretion is not censorship. WP:BLP is a more restrictive policy than many other institutions follow. It's one we should be rightly proud of. We should enforce it against indiscriminate, ill-advised, mean-spirited or careless editors. David in DC (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I've deleted Ridgeston's birth name.David in DC (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely no one can argue Ridgeston's real name is not widely disseminated. I think it is more than absurd to say people with interest in celerities real names are "stalkers" John celona (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a google search with the real name you provided for Ridgeston showing that it is also not widely known. Again, you really need to read WP:BLP because you really don't seem to understand it... or at least you don't want to. AniMate 22:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is on almost every google hit! John celona (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

21 google hits is a joke when you compare the 78,000 google hits returned for his stage name. If there are only twenty or so places on the web that report his name, then it is not a widely known fact. From WP:BLP When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed... This name is not widely known and it has been intentionally concealed. Let it go. AniMate 22:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am disengaging from this issue-for now. It is sad that a handfull of pro-censorship editors can twist Wikipedia rules that compel boldness and inclusiveness and make them look like they compel a rather infantile, self-righteous censorship. For the record, for anyone reading this as an archive: There is NO regulation on Wikipedia distinguishing porn stars from any other actor or celebrity. If any actor's real name is reputably sourced and widely disseminated it SHOULD be in the article notwithstanding an actor's or a studio's wishes or alleged wishes. If a google search instantly reveals the actors real name through a reputable source the name belongs in the article. Don't be tricked by some sophist making the completely absurd argument that "20 sources isn't enough". Be bold and put the real name in. This is an encyclopedia not a game of "who can censor who" --many editors don't realize that John celona (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah....Celona, I am glad you reach out to those who are "reading this as an archive" -- clearly you will be remembered and looked back as the noble sole who fought hard for the right to "out" the private names of porn stars. --Jkp212 (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I intend to catalog and revert all attempts to remove real names from porn star articles as the removal is blatant violation of WP:POINT. Sorry, but when you decide to be a porn star, you are relinquishing your right to hide your name. This is not a matter of opinion, since it is necessary to comply with the COPPA law. Anyway, as with any actor or author, when a pseudonym is used it is conventional to give the legal name as well. There is no consensus to change this policy and no rationale other then more hysterical WP:BLP hand-wringing. I will take a stand on this issue because I'm sick and tired of the extremists decimating our biographies. Fix obvious BLP errors, but do not remove verifiable information because you have some personal beliefs on privacy. WP:NOT here to be your privacy battleground, so take it to discussion boards if you want to gripe about it. Again, their choice to become a porn star invalidates their right to keep their real name secret. Accuracy and NPOV always trump WP:BLP; we are here to write informative articles for our readers, not play PR Firm for the subjects of biographies. No harm is done by listing the legal name other then fringe concerns invented by concern trolls. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. And a lot of what you've typed is put pretty incivilly. "[W]hen you decide to be a porn star, you are relinquishing your right to hide your name" is irrelevant. Getting the real name from a COPPA filing is the archetype of the behavior WP:NOR bans. And, as noted above, WP:BLP gives us pretty clear instructions on what to do if someone has purposely obsured their name, porn star or not. I think we're wise to be guided by the folks from the WP porn project, who have stated a pretty convincing case above, in my opinion, for removing porn actors' birth names unless they are known for something outside of porn.David in DC (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was rude, but my frustration is borne from seeing well intentioned fans of WP:BLP go to extremes to reduce our biographies to crappy stubs. Somebody has to stop this nonsense. WP:BLP is not a be all and end all to this project. The point of this project is write accurate, verifiable articles. Including the legal name is part of the accurate part and poses very minimal privacy concerns for those who have chosen to become actors. What industry they act in is irrelevant. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"I intend to catalog" is very different from "I am unilaterally reverting". The recent edits to Tim Hamilton's page are a disruption. Please stop. David in DC (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dragon says "fix obvious BLP errors"...One such obvious BLP error is including a poorly sourced name, the way Celona did above (source was a porn site)....You have encouraged him to engage in this type of behavior, which is not according to WP policy. --Jkp212 (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I will locate more reliable sources, including COPPA filings, and then re-insert the name. I will refrain from reverting any removals where the source was not reliable. But I reject this absurd notion that we must remove all legal names of actors because of privacy concerns. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I am WP:IAR because 3 or 4 biased editors do not get to reinterpret policy. Citing reliable sources, such as a COPPA filing, is not WP:OR. This is SOP for all actors, we list the pseudonym and the legal name. We do not make exceptions for pornographic actors. Again, WP:BLP is not part of the WP:FIVE and it does not trump reporting accurate, verifiable information where there are no REASONABLE privacy concerns. A legal name is not a valid privacy concern for an actor; their decision to be an actor disqualifies them from this right. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

BRAVO to you! As General Macarthur said-"I have returned!" John celona (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

1. You are not correct in stating that WP:BLP does not trump verifiable research -- it does. 2. You are, in fact, the one reinterpreting policy, which is pretty clear in terms of editing conservatively and trying to maintain privacy of semi-notable subjects. Especially when there is no clear benefit to the project to do otherwise. --Jkp212 (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Jkp12 is correct. WP:BLP does trump verifiability. It's there because not all available information is appropriate for Wikipedia. If you disagree, then I think you should go about trying to have WP:BLP rejected by the community, Dragon695. AniMate 00:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree on this. WP:BLP is fully respected here and violation of WP:POINT is utter nonsense. In his statement Dragon695 has clearly expressed that his real intentions are everything but neutral. But that is how articles should be written on any encyclopedia and on WP and not in a biased, ill-minded and ill-intentioned way. I apologize if I sound rude, but I am really upset about people like John celona and now Dragon695 spinning words and rules that are agreed upon by the community just to appear as victims of censorship when in fact they are the 'culprits' vandalizing established rules. (Jamesbeat (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

Care to make a point that is actually valid? WP:BLP is not universally accepted and there are still very contentious issues that still exist. The debates that happen on its talk page are rancorous and often very divisive. So I reject the notion that it has universal support, but that is besides the point. The bottom line is that actors in films, whether they be pornographic or not, do not get the same level of privacy that an average person does. It is their choice to become a notable subject. All of our biographies of actors who use pseudonyms list the real name. WP:NPOV does trump WP:BLP in that one class of actor will not be favored over another. Since you will not be successful in eliminating the real names in actors like Marilyn Manson, you can not justify eliminating it a pornographic actor's biography. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. And irregardless of BLP, I fail to see how adding the real names of people who are notable for their work in pornography under another name helps create a good article based on notable information about (their work in pornography under another name). If someone was notable for acting in pornography in the past and had now become an activist under another name and was engaging in activities that might become notable, then perhaps that other name would be suitable for inclusion to add research. But for the majority of these articles? Hell no. John Nevard (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry John, but we have plenty of pointless information. All actors using pseudonyms also have their real names listed. This is the default for just about every biography. The reason you and others want it removed is why? Why should porn actors get special treatment? WP:NPOV is very clear, we do not play favorites. There are no privacy concerns, if the information is reliably sourced, in it goes. It's a matter of consistency and accuracy. I'm sorry if the person is ashamed of being a porn actor, but perhaps they should have thought of that before they willingly chose to enter that profession. In light of that, I have already been busy making requests for COPPA documentation where only non-reliable sources document the real name. As these are official, government mandated documents, their accuracy cannot be disputed. Lastly, if you want to see just one of hundreds of biographies where the real name of actors with stage names are listed, please see Marilyn Manson. Note, nobody calls him by his real name in the media, but it is still a very factually relevent part of a biography. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you inform the rest of us what a COPPA filing is and how does one go about requesting this information? I mean is it a government document or database that's publicly available? Can you also explain to me how and why pornographic actors must disclose their real names to the public under COPPA when the law is aimed to protect the privacy of children when they surf the internet? I'm asking these questions because I believe you are advocating a point based on a misunderstanding of the law. Perhaps you're thinking of another law? Vinh1313 (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No BLP says:

I reinterpret nothing. It clearly leaves it open for discussion and the intent of preserving name privacy, as noted by the example court cases, is mainly to deal with people who are victims or otherwise in positions of great danger. Porn actors are not inherently victims and thus should be treated like any other actor with a stage name -- we should list the real name. WP:NPOV demands that these class of actors get no different treatment than those who are non-pornographic actors. If you can argue why non-pornographic actors should have their real names listed and why pornographic actors should not, without violating WP:NPOV, I am willing to listen. However, the discretion is clearly on a case by case basis and is left to the editor. I am willing to compromise in that I will endorse a temporary removal if there is documented evidence that an actor's live is in direct danger. What I will not accept is a blanket policy to omit all real names of actors with stage names. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus?

Does this represent a consensus now?:

Give the real names of porn stars only when the names are reliably sourced, and only when the stars are noted for some activities outside of pornography.

It looks to me like it does. David in DC (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• I need clarification on the "notable activities" outside of pornography. Like say a family law dispute that makes the papers like the Racquel Darrian example [7]. It's clear even from the newspaper article that she is trying to protect her privacy. What if the actor willingly discloses his/her name in a porn publication like Dana DeArmond? Vinh1313 (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I can't see the Dana DeArmond example as being an issue as her actions make it clear she is voluntarily forgoing her privacy by deliberately and publicly using her real name. It's when the porn star is not acting to reveal their real name that's the crux of the issue here, such as the Raquel Darrian example, and I honestly can't imagine a messier situtation to use to try and figure out how the new policy works than the Darrian example. Tabercil (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No David you do not have a consensus. My own guideline would be to merely look and see if Answers.com gives there real name. You may have had a consensus a day ago but now you don't. I reserve the right to proceed without the consent of some extremely small group on some Wiki noticeboard. Please take note that Answers.com does not give out Brandy Alexandres real name. All of these cases must be taken on a case by case basis. You do not have consensus here. Sorry David but your interpretation of Blp and wiki is redolent of that of someone who has an agenda. These cases must be decided on a case by case basis or not at all. Albion moonlight (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid answers.com is a Wikipedia content mirror. They take our content for many of the articles there. Best to not discriminate and just do like we do for all biographies of actors with pseudonyms. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. Like I said above, WP:NPOV demands that we give no favoritism to certain classes of biographies. Actors are actors, they choose to be in the spotlight even if they use a stage name. Being a porn actor is not a crime nor is it done unwillingly. The sense I get here is concern trolls who feel that porn actors are under some sort of extraordinary threat. I would argue that they are no more threatened than Marilyn Manson. We must have reliable, factual biographies so, like in the case of Marilyn Manson, we will list the real name once in the lead section once a very reliable source for the name is found. This is standard biography writing 101 people. Again, WP:NPOV demands that we treat them no differently then any other actor with a pseudonym. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a consensus or not, but I think everyone can agree that these names need to be impeccably sourced. So far the names that were being fought over had awful sources. Most likely if really reliable sources have their names, they are notable for something outside of porn. It's not hard to find Marilyn Manson's real name in a reliable source, or Tom Cruise. If we're talking about hunting down COPPA filings for Eastern European porn stars, then yes, that is a BLP violation. AniMate 22:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are in the eye of the beholder. No one gets too arbitrarily declare a source as unreliable, not even an admin can do that. Content disputes can and sometimes do go on forever. :Albion moonlight (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, in this case the majority of the sources were blogs and lukeford.com which aren't considered reliable sources. There's nothing arbitrary about this, and if you'd investigated the background of this you'd see they're not reliable just like you'd see answers.com is a mirror of wikipedia. AniMate 23:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think (LOL) Washington Post is a pretty good source. That hasn't stopped the pro-censorship trolls. see [8]. John celona (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose To censor well-sourced (NY Times, washington Post, etc), widely disseminated names of actors is a rule only in David-pedia, not Wikipedia. Somebody needs to block this guy from manufacturing his own pro-censorship rules, falsely claiming "consensus" and then censoring all over Wikipedia with that spurious "consensus". An encyclopedia is about INCLUDING facts not censoring them. Save that for David-pedia. John celona (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Stop focusing on other editors and start focusing on the issues. "Pro-censorship trolls" and "David-pedia" don't help your argument at all. AniMate 00:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The case that I referenced above is here : Albion moonlight (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Actualy AniMate I have seen many examples of the opposite wherein Answers.com does not mirror Wikipedia. But even if I am wrong about that, reliable sources are in fact in the eye of the beholder. You can wikilawyer until you are blue in the face and quote wiki rules adinfinitum but the fact of the matter is that the arbitration committee does not decide content issues. and mediation is not binding. The only rules that are enforced by admin are ones pursuant to behavior. You have heard of the ignore all rules rule on wiki have you not.? It all comes down to consensus and civility. Excuse me now while I go and collect examples pursuant to the mirror theory. Albion moonlight (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It does mirror Wikipedia, but unlike Wikipedia, it's not a Wiki that evolves in real time. That will allow for variations between the two platforms; however, each time this happens, answers.com catches up, and mirrors a more current Wikipedia version. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually arguing against Jkp212 about letting a porn star's name being allowed in an article. Ty Fox has had extensive coverage in reliable sources like the Washington Post, sourcing birth names to blogs is just sloppy. AniMate 05:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In general I agree with AniMate that sourcing birth names to blogs is sloppy, I do however think that there could very well be exceptions to any rule of thumb. Here, is an example of what I have been trying to say. It is one of the Pillars of wikpedia. I prefer it when we all agree to adhere to it. :Albion moonlight (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Related case Talk:Calpernia_Addams#Calpernia.27s_wishes and the fact that should the subject of an article express concerns about their birth name being included in their article the edits can be deleted and oversighted. Birth names of performers are encyclopedic information and if they can be reliably sourced then they should be included, unless there is demonstrable harm on a case-by-case basis. The notion that this particular type of performer requires some extra notability beyond that of their chosen profession is untenable. I am aware of no other class of articles, biographical or otherwise, that are required to meet this burden either for inclusion in the encyclopedia or for the inclusion a particular piece of encyclopedic information. Otto4711 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Not including in articles the real name of porn actors is in full compliance with WP:BLP and the other cited rules. It is utter nonsense to argue it is censorship. Censorship would be to delete those articles. It definitely makes a difference if people are acting in mainstream movies or in the porn business. Adding the real name of porn actors does not make a better article but is doing stalker's business like the Johan Paulik case has proofen. An encyclopedia has to be responsible and not to be like a tabloid. Therefore it should respect the privacy of people and not serve ill minded people like John celona, who use unreliable and bad sources to add real names. As the consensus above shows there is no arguing about publishing the names when the criteria are met. Again it is just spinning words and rules that have been agreed upon by the community to make editors appear as victims of censorship when in fact these editors are trying to 'vandalizing' established rules. (Jamesbeat (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

Washington Post or a mainstream US Tv station are "unreliable and bad sources" only for self-appointed censors like you. John celona (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear John, you neither gave Washington Post nor a mainstream TV station as source in the two cases that led to this discussion. Both I certainly would not have questioned as unreliable and bad sources and we would have argued about ethics and not about sources. What made the difference was that your sources then were a gay guide and a gay porn blog.

Well James, you seem to misunderstand what wiki means by consensus I will assume good faith and remind you that consensus does not exist until everyone either agrees or agrees to disagree. That is clearly not the case here. Second of all you should really avoid making personal attacks by calling people ill minded or vandals. That kind of behavior can get you blocked from editing wikipedia. I am not an ill minded person James nor am I a vandal. So please take it easy on the insults. OK ?? They are not helpful. :Albion moonlight (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't believe I used the word "censorship" in discussing this situation, but as long as you bring up that politically charged buzzword, I would point out the Wikipedia is not censored. There is a process in place on a case-by-case basis for dealing with the real name of anyone, porn performer or not, appearing in the article and that is to delete the edits and oversight them. I have not followed the alleged Johan Paulik "stalking" case but since Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources the notion that his name not having been included in a Wikipedia article would have prevented a stalker or anyone else from finding his name is ludicrous, since to be in a Wikipedia article it needs to be available elsewhere already. There is no consensus that I see here that including real names of porn stars (or anyone else) is acceptable only if they are notable for something other than being a porn star. The requirement of reliable sourcing proposed here is redundant to existing policies and the proposed requirement that they be notable for something outside of pornography is stupid and I cannot support any suggestion that there is consensus for this requirement. Otto4711 (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It would not have prevented a stalker from finding the name. But it makes a BIG difference if you have to search the net on your own or you just go to Wikipedia as your primary source. Again. This is straight from BLP Policy: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed as in certain court cases, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context". The real names of porn actors have intentionally been concealed AND omitting them does not result in a significant loss of context. Both these WP criterias are met when dealing with this issue. But to avoid significant loss of context it was proposed that when these persons are notable for something outside of pornography the name couild be added if properly sourced, of course. So this requirement is anything but stupid. (Jamesbeat (