Talk:Anya Ayoung-Chee/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Video theft

Former Miss Universe Trinidad and Tobago 2008 contestant, Anya Ayoung-Chee has a sex tape which was supposedly swiped from the laptop of her boyfriend, Wyatt Gallery. According to TMZ, Wyatt Gallery confirmed Ayoung-Chee was in the tape with him and another woman, but the other woman was not Miss Japan Hiroko Mima. Gallery claims the video with him, Ayoung-Chee and another unidentified woman was swiped while at a PC repair shop in Trinidad. 17.103.181.126 (ttgapers) 22:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.tgapers.com/Article2045.html 98.197.17.70 (ttgapers) 20:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Material like this does not belong in an encyclopedic biography on wikipedia, it should be removed and resisted by all editors and until some support can be found for the addition at the WP:BLP/N it should be removed immediately. Off2riorob (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No, apparently Wikipedia only allows entries like this in Carrie Prejean's profile and other people it disapproves of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.8.247.232 (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Living people

Please be aware that BLP applies to the talkpage just as much as the article. Off2riorob (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It is important that reality suffuses all articles about persons. This woman represented a country at the Miss Universe contest with Government assistance. Therefore bringing the country into disrepute by behavior as was displayed on the tape is relevant to all viewing the page and should act as an important deterrent to all young women that may engage in such activities. "Shame" on those who would seek to censor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.59.158.114 (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Shame on me then, so she has sex, so what, that is how we all got here, get over it. Off2riorob (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Language

Sex tape aside, this article reads like it was written by her agent. WP:BLP/N applies in both directions. Just as we shouldn't slime her unnecessarily (though there are numerous well-cited sec. sources for that slime) we can't honestly tolerate the promotion-ese dreck that fills this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.183.56 (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Link to wyatt gallery??

Why in heaven is there a link to her photographer boyfriends website?? While I sleep (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, removed per WP:EL Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for comments: Sex scandal reference

First of all, there was no consensus on removing the content that I added, however I am told in a revert comment that I did not have consensus adding the content. Fair enough. The portion in question is this:

She is also known for her controversial appearance in a [[sex tape]] in 2009 with her photographer boyfriend and an unnamed female.<ref>[http://gawker.com/5407261/guy-everyone-thought-had-sex-with-two-miss-universes-says-he-is-the-victim-here Guy Everyone Thought Had Sex with Two Miss Universes Says He Is the Victim Here] - November 18, 2009 - [[Gawker.com|Gawker]]</ref>

In it, the author of the article interviews a participating member in the film itself, who exonerates Hiroko Miwa in the process. This is similarly worded according to a precedence on Wikipedia over at Paris Hilton.

She is also known for her controversial appearance in a sex tape in 2003.

This topic concerns me because whenever there is censorship on Wikipedia, it hampers Wikipedia's role as a provider of facts (especially on a topic that received wide publicity). As a matter of fact people have sex and that in and of itself is not defamatory but human nature. The content I added is not unsourced, it does not add POV, a defamatory tone, or any of that nonsense since I am strictly interested in providing a fact and debunking rumors in the process, in a similar style as what has already been accepted on Wikipedia. However, as some have expressed concerns, I am eager to hear from both sides of the discussion. —Tokek (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Censorship is not choosing not to add content that is not encyclopedic or of any added value to the biography. This content is titillating sexual irrelevancy. The link that has been provided is also not wp reliable. Off2riorob (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the word censorship can be used when a minority decides to suppress information from the public. Now that's most likely not an accurate definition of the word. The content added may be, as you describe, "titillating" to some viewers, but as the Paris Hilton example which is virtually word-for-word the same up to a point, and a bunch of other articles show, the fact that it's about sex is not a criteria for removal from Wikipedia. I have no idea what you're basing the other comments off of. How is it irrelevant, and also I haven't seen a deletion request over at Gawker. We can't exclude all third party sources and rely solely on the primary sources to deliver unbiased news. —Tokek (talk) 16:17,24 December 2009 (UTC)

The public have this information if it is what they are into, that does not mean it is worthy of inclusion n an encyclopedia biography. :If this video was to become as big an issue in her life as it has been in Hiltons that would indeed be a different matter. Off2riorob (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what criteria you use to determine if it is irrelevant or not noteworthy, at all. Articles like sexual intercourse demonstrate that Wikipedia is not censored for children (WP:NOTCENSORED), so I don't see why there should be a hangup about this. The fact is that I presented the incident in a way completely lacking of any graphic expression whatsoever. It seems to me that the original protection was put in place because there were concerns with vandalism by a large volume of anon edits right after the news broke and before there was any time for any reporting to come out that would corroborate the rumors. The protection, which was temporary, served its purpose and as time has passed, more reporting was done, changing the situation. —Tokek (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse is not about a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 11:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If Sexual intercourse was about a living person... I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. You mean the sexual intercourse Wikipedia article, or the term itself? Either way, the portion you are quoting me is "Articles like sexual intercourse demonstrate that Wikipedia is not censored for children..." Your claim is that the portion you removed is irrelevant and not noteworthy, and you got disinterested in the discussion by not bothering to explain why you think this is the case. Unless you are affiliated with her or her PR firm, I'm not seeing the logic in your position.—Tokek (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have stated my position, it does get tiresome, on your talkpage, in the archives at the BLPN plenty of times, the content is cited to a wikipedia non reliable source and is not encyclopedic in nature, is a irrelevant issue in her life story, it was not widely reported by reliable sources, sex tape, so? It is titillating and tabloid in nature. In is so very different to the position of Paris Hilton's sex tape, you repeatedly put the comment as though it had massive importance in the lede, it may be important to your tastes but not in this encyclopedia biography of a living person. Also to reply to your comments, I do not believe in censorship and I do not work for her and I am not affiliated to her, in fact I do not care about her in any way. Off2riorob (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

stolen tape

It seems as though every attempt at adding it has been (legitimately or otherwise... and I assume the majority of it was nasty) reverted. Regardless, if Anya Ayoung-Chee is notable, then so is the scandal - it was in the New York Daily News, among (numerous) other sources which likely makes it the most widely-documented story mentioning her in the news world, as discomforting as that may be for her. I really don't have the heart to add it myself, though. 69.223.185.201 (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why it's not in the article either. If there is a significant scandal with any other celebrity or person worthy of a Wiki page, it gets included. In this case, even moreso should it be mentioned since (unfortunately) she is now best known for the scandal more than anything else even. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.190.172 (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As of August 8, 2011 it seems that there is a blatant bias against the inclusion of the sex tape information. According to the BLP, Wikipedia is not a tabloid. According to Wikipedia, neither is CNNGO. http://www.cnngo.com/explorations/none/sex-scandals-asia-139410 This was added by another user as an inline citation. The version removed was presented in a manner that was broadly neutral. Yet still it has been repeatedly removed by user Off2riorob and others. The information was from a reliable source and did not involve a feedback loop. It did not violate WP:primary and was obviously not self published. Now, let me quote from the BLP for those who insist on removing the sex tape information: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

So would you all kindly stop VANDALISING the article by removing the information?

I've read a bunch of "she claimed, they claimed". "Scandals" being reported on TMZ and other gossip sites does not mean it is "well documented" in reliable sources. Can this be found on websites other than gosspip/tabloids? —Mike Allen 03:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to the edit history for the article: 04:35, 2 August 2011 75.132.34.37 (talk) (6,464 bytes) (added citation from CNN (the national news giant) article to alleviate apparent concerns regarding reliability of TMZ(?). Remove other sources if redundant - not the whole entry)

http://www.cnngo.com/explorations/none/sex-scandals-asia-139410 (See item number 2 in the linked article.) <- CNN International. -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNNGo

Are you suggesting that the CNNgo article be edited to indicate that it is to be considered a "gossip/tabloid site" and not to be considered "reliable". Perhaps you wish to point out that the article cites the TMZ exclusive? WP:BLP "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." That pretty much covers the continued use of TMZ, since CNN is generally considered to be a reasonably reliable source.

Mike Allen, you removed the entry twice in less than an hour. Each time you also removed the included inline citations. Since you have previously cited WP:BLP in your edits I strongly suggest you review the sections of the BLP quoted above, and also suggest avoid editing article if you have no intention of actually reading what you are removing. This article does need protection, but not from those who have been restoring the information as referenced by CNN. It needs protection from people who are editing the valid (and properly cited) information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.113.90 (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Its just not encyclopedic-ally notable - especially a blp violation is adding the name of someone who it was thought and it turned out not to be. Did the subject comment about it? did the unauthorized publication of a private and personal tape affect her career in some way? no and no - its normal to have sex and the coverage of this tape story in reliable sources is minimal and of no apparent notability in her life - "and a sex tape of her was stolen and posted on the Internet" - this is an apparent illegal privacy violation and we are not required to continue and republish, its also trivia and titillation not worthwhile content in her life story. Off2riorob (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It was notable enough for CNN to mention her. It is not required to meet notability requirements for an Article, as it is not being presented as an article in and of itself. It is notable enough to be presented as a subsection of her article as she is one of the "stars" in the tape. See WP:N/N. Your unilateral decision that it did not affect her is, frankly ridiculous. It clearly did affect her, and she was reported as telling the local press that she would present comments after C.H.O.G.M. but those comments failed to materialise See http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Anya_to_speak_at_the_right_time-115305454.html http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Anya_fires_New_York_publicist-115300479.html and http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/PR_firm_drops_Anya-115299209.html The Trinidad Express is a local news source and generally accepted by 'Trinibagonians' to be reliable. At the time there was much speculation as to the timing of the release of the tapes which happened to generally coincide with the launch of her "design" career. (You want a reference for that too?) Please note: We are not republishing the material, only commenting on the scandal that affected the subject, regardless of how the scandal occurred. You will both please note that people have been commenting in the discussion page on the apparent lack of neutrality exhibited by those who repeatedly remove the content for over a year.

The removed content, "Ayoung-Chee filmed a sex tape with long-term boyfriend Wyatt Gallery in 2007 that was widely leaked to the Internet. Gallery claimed the footage was stolen from his computer while undergoing repair. Although viewers initially claimed that the second female in the film was another Miss Universe finalist (Hiroko Mima), Gallery claimed that it was just a close friend", cannot in any possible way be considered to be titillation and the only thing questionable about it is the inclusion of a specific date that has been called into question. Since I am providing links to local news sources here it is in the Express http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Anya_sex_video__hot__on_Internet-115306464.html

That she was filmed is incontrovertible. That the tape was released to the public and that Mr Gallery claimed that it was done when someone was repairing his computer is also unquestionable. That people speculated that it was miss Japan and that he claimed that it was not, in fact, Miss Japan, can be seen from the CNNGO article that you two insisted on repeatedly ignoring.

The text removed fulfills WP:NPOV, the fact that the resulting scandal can be found mentioned on the CNN international website fulfils WP:V and WP:NOR. The fact that it was properly cited inline satisfies WP:BLP. WP:N/N is not applicable in this case. Your personal view, while noted is in this case unimportant as the removed section clearly meets wikipedia's requirements for inclusion. Further, your recent claim that it has not negatively affected her, suggests that you find that there is no reason to remove the content, in keeping with WP:CRV.

Your blatant history of editing the article to remove the obviously verifiable information regarding a scandal that involves a public figure, (especially notable because it went without any discussion of the removal over the past year, which seems to be against WP) should cease. For better or worse it is a notable part of her life, it deserves inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.113.90 (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You make it seem CNN wrote a whole story about it. That's not the case at all. And the CNN "story" is just regurgitating the TMZ story. Of course gossip sites gave this coverage, it's what they report on. I don't see why you are so hell bent in adding this to her article when there are other areas on her biography that needs updating and sourcing (the article has two sources). It was a private video tape allegedly stolen while the guy was having his computer fixed. It was not formally released by the parties. How does is this notable just because someone steals a personal video tape and posts it on the internet? This is not Pamela Anderson or Paris Hilton -- which was highly notable sex tape releases. I'm ready to open a RFC and get this settled once and for all. —Mike Allen 01:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Mike, thank you for pointing out what has already been made patently clear: 1) CNN is a reliable source, that cited another source generally not considered to be reliable in and of itself. However, that has already been dealt with, by me at or about 05:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC) : "WP:BLP "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." That is what the WP:BLP states in the subsection on misuse of primary sources. Please feel free to actually read it for yourself. The inline citation that you have been removing cites an article on CNN, which you now agree does cover the scandal, and the specifics included in the subsection. As such there is no valid reason to continue removing the subsection and inline cnngo link, or even the TMZ link, which is only used to augment the reliable secondary that discussed it under the WP:BLP.

As to your question as to why I am so "hell bent" to add a valid item to the biography of the subject as opposed to tackling other areas of the biography, perhaps it has something to do with two established editors who seem have been exhibiting bias in failing to adhere to the WP's that they themselves cite? Perhaps it has to do with me not being an established editor and trying to correct the deficiencies, by returning information that I, and many other Trinidadians already know to be valid based on our familiarity with the subject? (See: discussion page posts made over a year ago.) Or perhaps it is because I am free to choose to do so, as it's inclusion in the form that you two removed violates NONE of the WP's discussed as far as I can see. (See any of the above comments referencing WP's, which strangely seem to be mostly from, ME the only active non-established editor in this discussion.) Perhaps you wish to deal with the doubled edge of that sword, and explain why you two have been so "hell bent" on removing it though it seems to violate none of the WP's that I've read so far, as opposed to, improving other areas of the biography of the subject?

Again, I find it ironic that you are both utterly content to sit there and dictate what is "noteworthy", when a reliable source -> CNN <- has been cited commenting on the scandal in much the same way that it was commented on in the subsection. Worse I find that both of your actions suggest that you have not been paying even mild attention to what you have been editing, or the things that you have been replying to in this discussion. As such, I see nothing wrong with an RFC that asks what specific section of what specific WP is being violated by the inclusion of the scandal, commented on by CNN, and properly cited inline, as a subsection of this article. So long as you please provide a link to that discussion so that I may reiterate the points that I've already repeatedly made regarding wikipedia's stated policies. As for settling the dispute "once and for all", I think that perhaps you are thinking of an RFAR? (I just hope it won't have to get that rfar... hah. Get it? "Get that Rfar"? Yeah....) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.113.90 (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Experienced contributors opinions and assessments of desired additions are extremely relevant - Wikipedia policy does not demand the addition of anything anybody wants with a citation. We are required by policy in regards to living people to edit conservatively, and as I said earlier, there are just not enough coverage of this in Reliable sources and there is nothing to flesh bones on it having any affect in her life story and she has not commented about the titillation at all, all of which from my experience asserts a low level of notability that considering the theft of the private video and the possibility that wikipedia could become the primary publisher of this content there is a good case not to republish this titillating sexual trivia here. Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

@Off2riorob I am sure that you can admit that your first statement may be influenced by just a wee bit of bias. The removed text in the most recent version has not been shown to violate BLP, NPOV, V, NOR or CITE, and I have already pointed out that according to wikipedia policy as a subsection it is not required to meet the standards for an article as shown by N/N. It's removal is not required by the BLP and seems to be in violation of the central premise behind Wikipedia. Your claim that it is titillating is not backed up by examination of the removed text. You are no longer blanking this because it's inclusion violates any wikipedia policy, you are blanking it because you personally dislike it's inclusion.186.45.113.90 (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I support free access to pornography. But this is an encyclopedia and in regard to the WP:Policy and guidelines I have mentioned there is no place for this titillating trivia. Off2riorob (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

What "policy" would that be exactly? WP:Unencyclopedic or WP:Not notable? I've shown that the information on the scandal is to be find on reliable sources, including CNNGO and the local print/online media. 1 2 3 4 You have failed to show how either fails to meet WP:RS standards. Your claim that she never spoke about it is nothing but WP:IDONTKNOWIT as she did in fact make a comments to the press about it 3. 186.45.113.170 (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You also have not yet answered my concerns about your edit to the header of this discussion, or the way in which you broke my contribution to the RFC. I repeat, that I would like for you to revert those edits. If you fail to do so, at the very least please explain why they are required, or to be considered improvements.186.45.113.170 (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I seem to be the only one of us who is actually trying to discuss this in terms of what policy it does or does not violate other than in terms of WP:IDL. Why is that?186.45.113.170 (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Mikeallen, please initiate the RFC and save me the trouble of figuring out how to do it myself. 186.45.113.90 (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of sex tape

Should Anya Ayoung-Chee's sex tape that was not formally released by the parties be included in her article? (see above) —Mike Allen 23:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The stolen tape has not been reported in multiple Wikipedia reliable sources. There has been no reported effect on the subjects career and she has never commented on it. As such its desired content that has not been widely reported in WP:RS and as such, if added would be, non encyclopedic titillating trivia in a BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The scandal has been mentioned in an article on CNNGO CNNGO meets the requirements of WP:RS. Off2riorb knows that claiming that she made no comment is untrue as a link to her comments to the press has been provided in the discussion above.186.45.113.90 (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• - NB The matter as discussed is not the sex tape, but the scandal caused by the sex tape which affected the subject, and at one point in time was what she was most known for, see comments in discussion above. The RFC should be edited to reflect this fact.186.45.113.90 (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• - Now that I've learned how to compare changes and do the "diffs", I would also like to ask what the purpose of changing the discussion topic diff, done by Off2riorob was. 186.45.113.90 (talk) 02:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

1. WP:BLP is not violated. The article on CNNGO was cited inline, meeting the requirements of WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:CITE
2. WP:PRIMARY is met. The inclusion of the less reliable source where an exclusive was given by creator of the video becomes acceptable under WP:PRIMARY because of the secondary, reliable source, CNNGO. If issue was taken with the use of the less reliable source, that source should have been removed, as opposed to the whole entry, as suggested by the user who included it See: article edit history.
3. WP:Nn is not applicable in this case as it is a subsection of the article and is not required to be met, the fact that it appears on the CNNGO article covers the notability requirement for content adequately.
4. WP:NPOV is met. The removed text clearly does not violate WP:NPOV and cannot be considered to be titillating in any way.:

Sex Tape Scandal

Ayoung-Chee filmed a sex tape with long-term boyfriend Wyatt Gallery in 2007 that was widely leaked to the Internet. Gallery claimed the footage was stolen from his computer while undergoing repair. Although viewers initially claimed that the second female in the film was another Miss Universe finalist (Hiroko Mima), Gallery claimed that it was just a close friend

• - http://www.tmz.com/2009/11/18/miss-universe-wyatt-gallery-anya-ayoung-chee-miss-japan
• - http://www.styleite.com/media/project-runway-sextape
• - http://www.cnngo.com/explorations/none/sex-scandals-asia-139410
• - http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Anya_sex_video__hot__on_Internet-115306464.html
• - http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Anya_to_speak_at_the_right_time-115305454.html
• - http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Anya_fires_New_York_publicist-115300479.html
• - http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/PR_firm_drops_Anya-115299209.html
• - http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Anya_to_star_on_Lifetime_s__Project_Runway_-125676793.html
• - http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-504083_162-6034829-3.html
• - http://abcnews.go.com/widgets/mediaViewer/image?id=9117314

This closely matches what can be found in the article on CNNGO, meeting the final requirement for WP:BLP

In my understanding of the matter I can see no further barriers in the Wikipedia policies to the inclusion of this material.

Finally, if I must assume WP:GOODFAITH then I believe that I must question WP:CIR wrt Bias, particularly in the case of user Off2riorob. Please pay special attention to his comments in the archived discussion and the current discussion. The user has been removing this content for so long that he has what appears to be a very strong bias against it's inclusion in the article, regardless of what measures have been taken to ensure that the material meets all of the requirements for WP:BLP as it currently does.

Additional relevant information from local media generally not inclined to publishing base gossip here, here here and here186.45.113.90 (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob, I see that you have edited several items in the formatting of my contribution. I wish to point out that I did use italics to highlight the material being discussed see:MOS:BOLD, and tried to keep the style as similar to that of the subsection on the article page as possible. Your numerous adjustements seem to have broken that formatting along with that of my final two paragraphs diff, and I am confused as to what purpose the changes serve. I would prefer if you reverted those changes, in keeping with the manual of style. 186.45.113.90 (talk) 01:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

N.B. I have reverted the aforementioned edits of Off2riorob in my contribution. I believe that they made the additional links harder to see. I've also included those additional links in the expanded version along with one from a CBSNews.com source and one image link from ABCNews.com which has a caption relevant to the scandal.186.45.74.170 (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Don't include A good case has been made that inclusion of this information may not be an obvious violation of policy. Now we need to decide, should we include it? Wikipedia articles by no means contain anything and everything that policy may allow to be included. That decision is left to consensus. There has been trivial reporting of this event and, given the prominence Wikipedia has in search engine results, we would become the prime purveyor of this sleaze if we were to publish it, and so become a significant player in the event, compounding any hurt or harm this breach of privacy has caused to a living person. Not our job. Not interesting. Not encyclopedic. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Anthonyhcole, I appreciate the fact that you are willing to at least recognise the points for inclusion. So just to get this straight, you're basically saying that the other side of WP:WELLKNOWN (i.e. what to me seems like a very simple policy"If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.") should be ignored despite being acceptable according to WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V, etc., because of WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, WP:INTERESTING and WP:IDONTKNOWIT? Is that correct? Because I was under the impression that those arguments were ones that it would be better to avoid, (though there really don't seem to be any others being brought forward yet) on the basis that they all generally invovle some form of bias. 186.45.74.170 (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

How is it that information that is clearly verifiable through reliable sources, about a scandal affecting a "notable person", (who, -if I'm allowed even half as much bias as others- is a public figure not really notable for much else besides being a miss universe contestant and being on a rather silly show/contest), should be swept under the rug because "it might be offensive" or "it might hurt their image if we mention it, despite it being true and verifiable". If it were a matter of there being "trivial" reporting of the scandal as shouldn't any of the people blanking the material for the last couple of years checked for citations, or at least tried to request them from Non-english sources? I don't think that it's needed, because of the availability of many weaker sources, and the ones that meet WP:RS give enough verifiability and notability for content. (That and I don't yet know how to do it.) 186.45.74.170 (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Does refusing to include the valid, NPOV, verifiable information regarding the scandal not directly contradict the very concept behind Wikipedia? 186.45.74.170 (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole: I seem to recall that several beauty pageant contestants have been embroiled in similar controversies. How has WP treated them in their articles? I see Vanessa L. Williams and Carrie Prejean articles both mention the photo scandals they were embroiled in. And there are probably others. My point is: if similar scandals have been included in other beauty contestant's articles, that indicates that the broader WP community has reviewed these kinds of beauty pageant scandals in the past and found them to be encyclopedic. --Noleander (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear arguments about this instance, on its own merits. It may be that persuasive arguments here change the thinking about those instances, if they are indeed analogues. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Include - Don't Include - [from uninvolved editor] WP policy permits inclusion of scandals such as sex tapes, but the WP:BLP policy requires that such scandals be abundantly documented by WP:Reliable sources. However, after reviewing the sources above, they do not meet the requisite strength. The sources themselves are gossipy, and hence not reliable. Furthermore, one of the sources says "Japanese media speculated that Japan's Miss Universe contestant was one of the trio along with Miss T and T and photographer Wyatt Gallery." ... note the word "speculated". For those reasons, the material should not be included. Some day, if better sources are available, perhaps it could be included, but not today. After reviewing the sources listed below, it looks like the sex tapes are well documented by the Trinidad and Tobago Express newspaper, which appears to be a reliable source. Scandals such as this are very significant for Miss Universe contenders, so it is relevant to the article, and not trivia. --Noleander (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Noleander, but I have to ask, did you also view the other articles, involving local news media that should fit RS 1 2 3 4 , provided above? Would removal of the reference to the obviously reported speculation make the entry acceptable? 186.45.74.170 (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've reviewed these sources, and I've been persuaded that the Trinidad and Tobago Express newspaper is a sufficient source. Also, the fact that similar scandals are included in the articles on Vanessa L. Williams and Carrie Prejean. I've amended my !vote above. --Noleander (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I included them in my original contribution to the RFC, but I believe that they have been made harder to see by the editing to my contribution done by Off2riorob here I asked him to revert, but have gotten no response. Am I permitted to revert? I've also found references to the tapes on CBSNews.com here and ABCNews.com here, I'd like to add both or either to the list of references as well.186.45.74.170 (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

IP: If you are talking about a list of sources that you introduced in this Talk page above, no one should be changing material you (or anyone) put here in the Talk page. Feel free to re-generate the list of sources, and put it here, again, in this section, so it is available for all to see. --Noleander (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments IP and Noleander. I take your points and, as I indicated above, I see nothing in policy expressly preventing the inclusion of this information, except possibly WP:UNDUE. Because we can, though, is, in my opinion, no reason to do so. Adding this to our article, the top Google result, will compound the hurt this person has suffered, it will inevitably prompt more people to search for the video. We can, as editors, choose to leave it out. That's my preference. You want to put it in. We obviously feel differently about the real impact we have on the real people we write about.

I believe this is a situation where we need to make a decision based on empathy, compassion and other human feeling, and not behave as though we are algorithms. WP:RS + WP:V + WP:NOR + WP:CITE + WP:NPOV = include.

I have explained why it would be a good thing to leave it out: Wikipedia playing a major part in the promotion of this breach of privacy and gratuitously compounding the hurt. Can you explain why it would be a good thing to include it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Addendum 03:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree.. but Wikipedia is not censored. So.. Anyway at this point I really don't care if it gets added or not. I've read where Anyoung Chee apparently did not like this in the article. Also Wikipedia is not a news repository site so I see no benefit at all. I don't see how it was even a scandal to begin with. They had a threesome, big deal? To me it's obvious the IP has some sort of agenda (and a strange understanding on the polices here --- for an anonymous editor) to be so adamant to keep this gossip in her article. They claim it's bias not to add it. How is it beneficial for this to be added? Does a reader really need to know that there is a private sex tape of the girl scattered online to help better understand her? I just no longer want to be associated with this anymore, so like I said, I could care less what happens. I sure don't want to be included in a lawsuit, if she decides to somehow legally censor this. —Mike Allen 02:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

There won't be a lawsuit. Nothing's being proposed that hasn't already appeared in reliable sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, again thanks for explaining your view, and I understand your concern and what you are saying. I must point out though that for me, the current top google result for the search term "Anya Ayoung-Chee" or "Anya Ayoung Chee" is not wikipedia. It's this link to mylifetime.com's project runway page. The Wikipedia article is currently second. The third, fourth and fifth, go to sites that refer to the scandal. http://www.google.tt/search?q=anya+ayoung+chee In this case, at this time, I honestly can't see how a refusal to include will affect the number of people who are exposed to the information. Sticking our heads in the sand, pretending that it didn't happen, won't make this go away. By refusing to include it and other items simply because we don't like them, it seems to me that all that is being done is a weakening of the Wikipedia in general because of personal preference.

I must also ask if the reverse argument is any less valid, just because we "can" leave it out, you must ask, "should we?" This is a public figure. It is a notable event in her life, which is STILL being mentioned by the reliable media as recently as Jul 16, 2011. [http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Anya_to_star_on_Lifetime_s__Project_Runway_-125676793.html] In so doing they are not creating or endorsing the scandal, or the theft of the video. CNNGO, CBS, ABC, local media and others have all commented on the fact that it happened. Should any of us, as Wikipedia editors refuse to do the same because we don't like the effect that it may have?186.45.74.170 (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In a single sentence, the response to your final question would be: Because to my understanding WP:WELLKNOWN very clearly states that the mention of the scandal should be included in this case regardless of if she likes it or not, and because leaving notable, verifiable, NPOV material out simply because there are those who do not like the idea of it being included, seems be against the very concept of wikipedia.186.45.74.170 (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

MikeAllen, whether we like it or not, whether we consider it a major deal, it's a scandal that is well known and verifiable about a public figure. There is no benefit to refusing to add it, and for all of your posturing the "I don't know it" and "I don't like it" arguments are, according to wikipedia weak ones. If you truly do see something wrong with my interpretation of policy, please show my WHY, link me to the policies and explain your reasoning, as I have attempted to do. If you want to make accusations of bias, I strongly suggest you review the fact that Off2riorob has been removing this for literally more than a year, just as he seems to have a way of trying to remove, delay or refuse entry of comments on sexuality on other articles which is apparent even to a complete noob. I'm new, yeah, but really, for two "long term editors" you two have presented no valid reason to not include the information about the scandal. You haven't sought compromise in any way that I can see. Your RFC was made only a few hours after he made a sneaky change to the header of the discussion that had been going on for over a year before I got involved. Your RFC was named in such a way that it reflected the change, and could lend ambiguity to the topic under discussion. Nobody here wants to add a link to the video as far as I know, but a comment on a major scandal in the life of a public figure with relatively little else on an absolute scale that can be mentioned. I honestly suspected you two of being involved in some underhanded plot for the removal, before I came across the WP:CIR entry and saw a possible reason for your actions other than bad faith. You personally were reverting edits that link to a RS 1 2 , and didn't even consider checking to see if any of them were tied to a major news outlet until I pointed it out above. Do you care to explain any of those? Even Anthonyhcole has agreed that the policy says that there are good reasons to include and is at least trying to present "empathy" as a reason not defined in the policy. That at least is an argument that, while I don't agree with, I can understand and respect. 186.45.74.170 (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Google; Wikipedia is top where I am. Must be a regional thing. I've noticed this before, e.g., in extensive discussions around the Google ranking of Santorum (neologism). I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the main issue here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not good at wikilawyering. But I will say I am not aware with nor concerned about Off2riorob's history here and apparently you know more than I do about him or her. This page is off my watchlist as I just don't really care about this now. —Mike Allen 03:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've put an invitation to comment on the BLP noticeboard. [1] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Compromise proposal - Since there is general agreement that the sources are Reliable Sources, and since other articles on beauty pageant contestants cover similar scandals, what about this: The article includes a single sentence on the scandal, and it is embedded within an existing section. In other words, there would not be a dedicated "Scandal" section, and it would be a single brief sentence. I think that would avoid any UNDUE problems. Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I can live with that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection, but I would prefer if someone else drafted it as my sentences tend to be run ons and there might be claims of issues with NPOV. I would like it to include at least two of the sources from the list above, but not the ABCnews one. (I dislike the caption's treatment of the matter, as it has an incorrect claim.) Perhaps the CBS or CNN (or both as they would be more recognisable names for those who come after) and one of the Express ones? Two, or three of those sources should easily show WP:V, but not crowd the references/external links section which would, in my mind leave a door open for someone to raise the issue of concern about WP:UNDUE.186.45.74.170 (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

What about one footnote marker at the end of the sentence,^[21] linking to the three sources you suggest, IP? I did that for a string of seven refs, and it doesn't set off alarm bells for experienced readers when they see a string of cites inline. I don't have time now but if no one's done the edit or proposed one here in a few days I'll have a go. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I added two small sentences to the article, at the end of the "Miss Universe" section. I addressed the footnote issue by (1) only using the Trinidad and Tobago Express references; and (2) condensing all references into a single footnote marker so that no alarm bells will go off when readers read the sentence. Feel free to improve/tweak as needed. --Noleander (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Noleander, I think that it's more than enough. The only one of the Express links that I think absolutely needs to be included is the first one http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Anya_sex_video__hot__on_Internet-115306464.html

Anthonyhcole, if you'd like to tweak to remove any (or even all) of the others and replace with either of the CBS or CNNGo links I would have no objection. I also have no objection to leaving Noleander's version.

Again, thank you both for your input, for taking the time to explain your viewpoints, for seeking compromise, and for generally putting up with a noob like me. 186.45.74.170 (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• - note - I am busy but this RFC has only been open for five days and its quite normal to stay open for thirty days - I am going to comment myself but am currently a bit busy and standing back to see what new users have to say about it, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I only put this tentative solution into the article so other editors could see how it looks in the big scheme of things. Feel free to revert if you're not happy with it. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. [2] I've changed the text to say the tape was leaked in 2007, rather than that it was filmed in 2007. If I'm wrong, please revert. I'm still quite uncomfortable with any mention of this here. I see this as a compromise for now but my vote is still firmly in the remove camp. It doesn't really belong in the Miss Trinidad and Tobago Universe 2008 section but starting its own section would just add to its prominence in the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole I believe that it was leaked in 2009, though the claim was made that it was filmed in 2007.02:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Anthony or Noleander I don't mind if the added content were brought back to the discussion page or placed as a talkspace draft (which should be considered as having more than one editor, as you've both contributed to it's current form) for the mean time, or until such time as Off2riorob can make some comment other than "I busy and can't comment on this right now". I am especially interested in seeing the comments that answer some of my questions above. If it is converted into a talkspace draft, I believe that it might be for the best to add all of the above links for posterity, but indicate that the suggestion that we all seem to be willing to agree on is for there to be only as few links included as necessary to show wp:RS and wp:WELLKNOWN in order to avoid wp:UNDUE.186.45.74.170 (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with moving it here while we discuss, if you prefer. Do you want to do it, and maybe make what changes you want? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No thanks, I'd prefer if one of you pulled it over and then we could just edit as needed here or in a talkspace draft as decided. I've never edited an actual article other than hitting "undo" to return the properly cited, RS material as seen above. I actually don't know if my removal would break the references at the bottom of the page or anything.186.45.74.170 (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You can't break anything that can't easily be fixed. Anyway, this is the version before someone changed it to a "private intimate video." Make any changes you deem appropriate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

While I accept that my changes can probably be easily fixed, I'm sure that you can see why I might have a bit of trouble following through with the whole "be bold" thing. All I've changed is the date, to reflect the leak in 2009 and I'm including the full list of references above for posterity. I consider the lines to cover a minimum of information, required to inform about a notable scandal in the life of a public figure, as recorded in local and international media, and provide links to reliable sources that inform of such for any who wish to know more. I am willing to accept the inclusion of it in this form (without it's own subsection) as a compromise, primarily because of your argument regarding ethics "to avoid compounding hurt". If you wish to remove the information until the discussion has reached it's useful conclusion I would offer no objection.186.45.74.170 (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ayoung-Chee filmed a sex tape with long-term boyfriend Wyatt Gallery that was widely leaked to the Internet in 2009. Gallery claimed the footage was stolen from his computer while undergoing repair.

The following list of urls all contain some information relevant to the scandal caused by the leaking of the sex tape. This should not be considered to be a complete list. They are recorded here for posterity and the current suggestion is that only as few of these be used in the article proper in order to satisfy the requirements for inclusion.

• - http://www.tmz.com/2009/11/18/miss-universe-wyatt-gallery-anya-ayoung-chee-miss-japan
• - http://www.styleite.com/media/project-runway-sextape
• - http://www.cnngo.com/explorations/none/sex-scandals-asia-139410
• - http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Anya_sex_video__hot__on_Internet-115306464.html
• - http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Anya_to_speak_at_the_right_time-115305454.html
• - http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Anya_fires_New_York_publicist-115300479.html
• - http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/PR_firm_drops_Anya-115299209.html
• - http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Anya_to_star_on_Lifetime_s__Project_Runway_-125676793.html
• - http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-504083_162-6034829-3.html
• - http://abcnews.go.com/widgets/mediaViewer/image?id=9117314

Done You seem to be proposing one or two references in the text, and leaving the above list here on the talk page for editors who may want to verify the relevance of the event, have I got that right? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and yes you do, at least until such time as consensus is achieved. For well over a year the reason for removal was "lack of reliable sources" despite the inclusion of the CNNGO source. It later became the "number of sources". I spent a short time on google and was able to find reference to the scandal on CBS and ABC, as well as the only local newspaper whose archive is easily searchable. I would be surprised to find that additional sources do not exist, especially on Japanese Language sites, but I don't read Japanese, don't trust google translate for something of this sort, and wouldn't know which should be considered reliable. As I said in the discussion above, given the availability of additional sources, there's no reason why the TMZ article couldn't be included according to wikipedia. I would hope that the names ABC, CBS and CNN will be enough to overcome any lingering doubt from those that have not yet contributed that this scandal received sufficient coverage to meet the standards for inclusion according to WP:WELLKNOWN 186.45.74.170 (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

There is some local Trinidad coverage and a minor smattering of trivia reports but its just titillating trivia - In 2007 a private intimate video featuring Ayoung-Chee was stolen from her boyfriends computer and leaked to the the Internet. - the subjects lack of comment about it and the fact that there has been no secondary cause and effect on her career make it a low value factoid. Off2riorob (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This talk of "she made no comment" has been answered above. To continue with the claim is now totally disingenuous. While limited she did make some comments to the local media, she promised more at a later date but failed to produce. A direct link has been provided in the list above, and I have adjusted it to be sure that it is working at the time of my posting. The "smattering" of reports can be found on respected news sites and the above list cannot be considered to be complete in and of itself. A few minutes on google showed me in minutes what you have refused to see over the course of years, and I have little doubt that Japanese contributors would be able to find more on the scandal. As an example a report that seems to be from one of the major news agencies in south-Asia can be found here, the only reason it was not included above is that the site it appears on is itself linked to a tabloid newspaper in India. By the way, local coverage, by reliable sources is acceptable according to wikipedia's policies. The fact that people and institutions commenting on her current activity continue referring to the scandal caused by the tape indicates the secondary cause and effect you are saying does not exist. All of this has been covered in detail already on this discussion page. Others have agreed to the validity of the information and sought an acceptable compromise over the course of days, you have failed to do so over the course of years. I have asked you to specify which policies the inclusion would violate, you have failed to do so. So, again, can you please come up with something other than WP:IDL arguments , so that we can all move on already?186.45.101.218 (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(Also, please be aware that the year you quoted above is incorrect. You should be well aware of this as you have been actively blocking the inclusion of the information since about the time of the leak.)186.45.101.218 (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have assisted in keeping this trivia out of this BLP yes - the subjects lack of comment about it and the fact that there has been no secondary cause and effect on her career make it a low value factoid. Its weight , notability and BLP considerations - it's a titillating factoid unworthy of inclusion in a decent biography. In 2007 a private intimate video featuring Ayoung-Chee was stolen from her boyfriends computer and leaked to the the Internet. - dot com - Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Subject did make limited comment about the scandal, link has been provided above. Please show that the subject commenting on it is required by Wikipedia. Please give reasoning to prove that material covered by CNN, CBS, ABC, ANI, and local news media is not adequate by some standard other than WP:IDL. Please be aware that the tape was not stolen in 2007 as you have repeatedly, incorrectly asserted. BLP's WP:WELLKNOWN requirements have been met. Content is not required to meet the notability standards for article creationas per WP:NNC. This was a major scandal in her life, and was widely reported. Weight seems to require that this easily verified information be included in some form, and you can see suggestions for compromise above that try to limit any undue weight being given by the inclusion of all of the sources. ALL of these were dealt with above quite some time ago. Again I have asked you to specify which policies the inclusion would violate, you have failed to do so. Can you please come up with something other than WP:IDL arguments , so that we can all move on already?186.45.101.218 (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Its simple editorial quality control. Subject didn't comment anything notable about the stolen video. Its not a major scandal at all. what happened in her life to assert notability to it - nothing - no cause and effect at all. - pure and simple low notability level titillating trivia. Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In other words "no policy, other than IDL"? Scandal was major, as noted by CNN and CBS coverage. Your assessment of notability is at odds with the previously stated facts and unnecessary for inclusion. I think that it's high time you familiarised yourself with WP:BLP especially WP:WELLKNOWN if for no other reason than the fact that you've been misusing it to exclude the information for nigh on two years. All of wikipedia's requirement's for inclusion have been met, you claim otherwise but have failed to show any valid policy to back your view. You need to accept that these BLP articles are not your personal playground where you can dictate what is and is not to be included according to your whims and fancy regarding sexuality and seemingly anything to do with sex at all (as can bee seen throughout your history here it seems). In the case of well documented, verified, NPOV, NOR material, covering a scandal affecting a public figure WP:BLP is abundantly clear. All of your sneaky editing of the topic under discussion, all your claims of non-existent policy violations and even your claim of the desirability of your opinion as an experienced editor, will not change the fact that you are required by the same policy you tried to cite to include this material. If you ever do manage to find a policy to back your claims, please feel free to present it. If you had taken a more well reasoned stance and at agreed that the policy allows it's inclusion, but appealed to my sense of sympathy for an individual and sought compromise at ANY point the way Anthonyhcole did, I would have a lot more respect for you. Your wp:IDL arguments have no place in the determination of what belongs and doesn't. Wikipedia is very clear on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.87.52 (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Its not that WP:IDL it, I enjoy pornography myself - as I have stated - the subject didn't comment about it and there were no cause and affects in her notable life - the coverage imo is minimal, as a result its trivia and as it was stolen its also intrusive trivia imo. - Off2riorob (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

In 2007 A private intimate video featuring Ayoung-Chee was stolen from her boyfriend's computer whilst it was undergoing repair and leaked to the the internet.[1] - Off2riorob (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

All it really does is publicize the video and add upset and suffering to the situation which , its not like the subject released it herself - it was theft of private personal property. The lack of response from the subject and the lack of cause and effect in her life leaves a simple factiod without any "bones" to the detail that "insists" or "demands" we include it here (imo) - Off2riorob (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

(Outdent)

1. That's not the proposed compromise version and was produced by an IP who does not seem to have taken any part in this discussion. It is in fact incorrect as you have been repeatedly informed, (a good faith mistake originally made by Anthonyhcole which has since been corrected in the version above), and it should be removed. Time to drop the WP:IDHT routine and self edit as your activity now counts as "inserting unsourced information into a BLP talkpage".
2. Your repeated claim is that the videos have had "no effect", despite having been given links that prove your POV incorrect. How then do you come up with the claim that it will add "upset and suffering" where there has been none despite widespread media coverage? Choose one or the other already. Also, when you do actually find the time to read the BLP policy, you'll see that it mentions adding things whether the subject likes their inclusion or not. This should tell you something about the argument you're attempting to use.
3. Regarding publicising the video, I'd say you're about two years behind the times. Please refer to the various articles from reliable sources or feel free to google the subject to confirm. You've pretended that it didn't happen and tried to keep it out of the article for long enough. Also note that NONE of the proposed sources are providing access to the video.
4. How does whether or not you like porn (a point that you seem to have admitted and then retracted and now readmitted for whatever reason) have anything to do with adding a comment on a widely reported scandal in the life of a Public Figure to an online Encyclopaedia in accordance with the clearly defined WP:BLP policy? Do you equate commenting on the fact that such a scandal exists with porn? If so it would explain why you've repeatedly called this NPOV material "titillating", and that is probably something that a sane individual may want to have looked into by a professional in real life.
5. Your opinion on how much coverage it got seems to be contrary to the information in the cited articles above. Please provide a citation for your "imo" statements above. You've been also told repeatedly that she did make limited comment and the link has been provided above, she seems to have made comments to the media on other sites but I am sure that you can google it yourself. WP:IDHT is really not a good strategy for you, please choose another in line with wikipedia's policies and guidelines so that we can move on with this.
6. If your problem is with the "bones", please feel free to add as much "flesh" as you want from any of the cited materials above or any other WP:RS you can find (as you should have attempted to do in December of 2009). I'd be more than willing to return to the original version above with all of the additional information and all of the cited sources if that's what you suggest if you can convince Anthonyhcole. As it stands I rather liked his proposals in the compromise discussion. He, much to his credit, was honest enough to admit that his reservations are not directly tied to any particular wikipedia policy. A pity you've failed to do so after all of this time.

I look forward to seeing your proposal for the fleshed out version.186.45.87.52 (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I oppose any "fleshing out " of this tittilating factoid. What is the good faith error in the content above. I am happy with my position all through this and I care less at all about your attacks. This is not a competition with a winner its a life story of a living person. I am also bored of repeating myself - I have commented - if you don't like it or disgree thats fine. If consensus is opposing me I am happy to accept that also. Off2riorob (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no actual consensus for anything yet. Noleander and 186 favour inserting a mention, Rob, Mike and I are opposed. As a mention will certainly alert more people to the existence of the video, and prompt more to search for it, inclusion will definitely compound the hurt done to this girl by the leaking. I believe the best thing to do right now would be to leave it out. If a clear consensus or significant majority forms in favour of inserting, or if someone can explain how it would be in any way a good thing to include this, I'll respect that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

[The good faith error made by Anthonyhcole]. Off2riorob's repeating it despite being told very clearly, more than once, that it's incorrect, well I'd probably call that something else. It's also no surprise to me that he cannot find any sources, or policy, to back his points of view. The discussion archive clearly shows that he's been opposed to any inclusion of NPOV content regarding this matter for very near to two years.

Anthonyhcole, I believe that reviewing the discussion above, you'll find that Mike's openly withdrawn from this while commenting on the possibility of a legal threat that we both know holds no water. Can you please review WP:WELLKNOWN and see what is said about the inclusion of well sourced, notable material to BLP's. That's wikipedia's policy. Not mine, not yours, not O2RR's. Rob is right that this is the life story of a living person. The policy covering what should and should not be included, whether the subject may like it or not, is very clear.

I am still waiting for anyone opposed to this inclusion to justify their position in terms of some wikipedia policy other than WP:IDL. Come on it really can't be that hard, unless none exists? 186.45.87.52 (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:I just don't like it - is an essay not a guideline or policy. Asserting that we have to include whatever the subject might not like is a bit of a simplification - we are encouraged to edit conservatively about living people through WP:BLP policy. This issue is a play off between BLP and well known - all in all , considering the low notability of the subject also and the facts as I presented - almost no bones ot add to the story, I am more than satisfied that my position has been erring on the side of cautious reporting in this case. - Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Its just editorial judgment from experienced contributors - regarding the WP:BLP guidelines and WP:WEIGHT all of which has previously been stated to you. Repeatedly linking to essays is unnecessary - your not being clear about this claimed deliberate fabrication by me - is it that the year of publication is confused with the year of recording, the diff you presented, is that the corrected diff or the claimed mistaken one, thanks - please be a bit more clear about this. What is it that you assert I am deliberately falsifying? Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC) - Off2riorob (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

So, is this correct...Off2riorob (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A private intimate video recorded in 2007 featuring Ayoung-Chee was stolen from her boyfriend's computer whilst it was undergoing repair and leaked to the the internet in 2009.[1] Off2riorob (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea if either of the claims in that statement are correct. I know that it was reportedly filmed in 2007 and it was reportedly stolen when the machine was undergoing repair. Both of those claims come from one of the involved parties. I believe that Noleander's proposed version is more correct, and should you wish to substitute "said" with claimed, I would not oppose. Should you wish to revert to the single sentence version proposed in December 2009 by user Tokek, I believe that it is also more accurate than what you have posted above. The mere fact that this has been widely reported by so many reliable sources is exactly why it should be included according to BLP, and the concept of "weight" would suggest that it should be added, however the content under discussion is not a "viewpoint" per se, but a widely reported verifiable incident in the life of a public figure as per WP:WELLKNOWN. ANY of the NPOV suggestions made thus far would be acceptable under wikipedia's policies with the inclusion of the reliable sources. Regarding your "judgement from experienced contributors" please see WP:NVC and WP:OWN.186.45.87.52 (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

We can report what people said when it is not disputed. Harry claimed this is weaselly and unless there is dispute its undue to add doubt. WP:NVC is another essay- WP:own is a policy which I am happy to comply with. I have said repeatedly including today - I am expressing my interpretation of wikipedia policy and guidelines through my experiance but I am happy if consensus is against me. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"We can report what people said when it is not disputed." Doing so would involve saying that a person said it, rather than presenting it as a fact in and of itself. As I suggested, feel free to substitute "said" into Noleander's proposed version above to replace "claimed" and it ceases to be "weaselly". (Isn't that a neat trick, answering the objection in advance?) In either case, by your own admission above we CAN report this matter, since it's not disputed to have actually happened. Yes, NVC is an essay, one which seems to adequately deal with your claim of "experience". You might want to read it. Tell me, have you read WELLKNOWN recently? I've found that actually reading, prior to interpreting, helps.186.45.87.52 (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see Off2riorob's switched his plea to wp:undue, which I personally consider ridiculous, as UNDUE has nothing to do with the content under discussion. The material being added is not a viewpoint, it is a well documented scandal, acceptable for inclusions according to wikipedia's policies, but not it seems O2rr's. I also see that there's been quite a lot going on over at AN/I and elsewhere during our RFC's timeframe. The I consider the parallels especially with regard to how the policies are 'interpreted' to be most interesting. Again, WP:BLP is not violatied by the inclusion of this material, and it's very clear that it IS being violated by the refusal to include this non-contentious material( WP:V has been met many times over.). WP:GNG is very clear and to be as honest as possible, so is the general consensus of wikipedia regarding the inclusion of coverage of such scandals on other BLPs.

Our RFC seems to have failed to produce significant attention, despite Anthonyhcole's repeated pleas.

And, I am STILL waiting to be given a reason for the unsolicited, undiscussed edit made to this discussion page, particularly with respect to the one made mere hours prior to the RFC, which seem to me to be an attempt to skew the viewpoint of what is really under discussion.

Seriously, all of your arguments thusfar have devolved into nothing more than WP:IDL. The policies clearly do not state what you think they do. Please familiarise yourself with them and present a cogent argument against the inclusion of the content, linking to the specific policies so that they can be understood.186.45.80.196 (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think from all the discussion here wether there is ultimately agreement for some kind of addition or not, there was no consensus support for any content to be under its own "sex tape scandal" header. Also there is no agreement at all to include the falsly claimed name of a perrson that had nothing to do with the video at all. The falsly named person also has protection on wiki through careful policy and guidance editorial control. All of which gave the addition an appearance of "undue" imo. (O2rr out and about) - There may be a good chance of getting agreement on as a compromise an addition of - A private intimate video featuring Ayoung-Chee was stolen from her boyfriend's computer whilst it was undergoing repair and leaked to the the internet in 2009.[1] Gettingit5 (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If you look above there are other versions that say more or less the same thing, though I personally have a problem with reporting that it was stolen while the machine was undergoing repair as to the best of my knowledge this has never been proven and remains a claim of one of the involved parties. You'll see that the "falsely named person" was not included in the version that we were working on above. You'll also see that compromise was being discussed in terms of including it without it's own sub-header. If you view the archived discussion from almost 2 years ago, you'll see another NPOV version She is also known for her controversial appearance in a sex tape in 2009 with her photographer boyfriend and an unnamed female. That was opposed by... oh O2rr, seemingly single-handedly on the basis of WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and lack of "reliable sources" (sounds very familiar, doesn't it). Reliable sources have since been provided, in quantity. Either of the other versions suggested are more accurate imo than the version suggested by O2rr (unless anyone wishes to provide reliable sources to prove his version is more accurate - of course one might argue that failure to do so would actually be a violation of BLP even though the inaccurate content added by O2rr is here on the talk page), and again, if the issue of WP:WEASEL is raised, the word "said" can be substituted into the suggested version above to replace "claimed" and we can put paid to that.

Again, please do take the time to actually read and understand the policies that you are claiming as violated. And when presenting them in your arguments, do the newb a favor and provide links to them so I can see the actual policy instead of your "interpretation". Reading and understanding the discussion that you've been a part of for near on 2 years would be a great thing too.186.45.80.196 (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The boyfriend claimed the video was stolen - no one is disputing this are they? so we can accept his report as undisputed after two years. I an offering a compromise and yet you still focus on me and not the content, we will be here for another two years at this rate. Off2riorob (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you really like anything more than being here for another two years at this rate? Do you remember that you openly opposed any "fleshing out" of the proposed version above calling it a "titillating factoid"? Do I really need to post the link to that for you? I've given reasons why I believe that your version is unacceptable according to BLP and have asked that you provide citations to prove the claims made in your version. I look forward to you doing so. If on the other hand your argument is that "long-standing" and "undisputed" = true, then I must point out that it is undisputed that the video was filmed by one Wyatt Gallery and that he was/is/whatever the subject's long term boyfriend. As such the a modified version of the one proposed far above must be considered even more acceptable than your own:

Ayoung-Chee filmed a sex tape with long-term boyfriend Wyatt Gallery that was widely leaked to the Internet in 2009. Gallery said the footage was stolen from his computer while undergoing repair.

(Note that the word "claimed" has been replaced by word "said" and that there's quite a nice -if incomplete- list of references that we could have added by that between the three of us we seemed to prefer the idea of using only a few references to avoid adding the perception of any undue weight.)

Alternatively here's the version proposed by Tokek almost 2 years ago:

She is also known for her controversial appearance in a sex tape in 2009 with her photographer boyfriend and an unnamed female.

(Note that the references proposed above have been added but there are several others that can be added should someone try to use the false claims of "it wasn't a controversy" or "insignificant coverage" or "she didn't make any comment" or "she wasn't affected" again.)

So Off2riorob, those are BOTH slightly modified versions of suggestions that have been offered with an eye towards compromise. Imo either is more acceptable according to Wikipedia's very clearly written BLP policies than your version. Do you care to deal with either the content of either or present citations to meet the requirements of wikipedia's policies so that we can move on, or should we start to clear our respective slates clear to 2013 so as to deal with all the various permutations of WP:IDL?186.45.80.196 (talk) 05:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Mention of the tape SHOULD be included, I have personally seen the tape, It does exist, Stolen or not it should be mentioned.Swampfire (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC expired

• - RfC expired, no "compromise" reached at this point

1. So the RFC is expired. Despite the efforts of Anthonyhcole on the various noticeboards, it failed to attract significant attention. I believe, due to Off2riorob's latest edits that he's already realised that the proposed material is more than acceptable according to WP:BLP (and so was the properly cited version that was being removed when I joined this discussion). I say this because the tune has changed from "BLP" to "MIGHT BE UNDUE?/MIGHT CAUSE HARM?" and the ever popular "IDL" during our time here. The consensus of Wikipedia as a whole is that such content is acceptable when it's being done to comment on a MAJOR, WELL REPORTED, WELL KNOWN scandal involving public figure, as we can see from several other BLP entries. It is my firmly held belief that the removal of ANY form of this information that meets the wikipedia policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NNC and WP:BLP will be a direct violation of Wikipedia's policies and core principles. This information has been blocked from the article for no valid reason for far too long and based on the history of the article and it's discussion I honestly doubt that there will be any willing compromise any time soon. So the question becomes what's the next step? WP:MEDCABAL? 186.45.65.85 (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

As I have said as a compromise I would be willing to not remove (although I personally wouldn't add it) my offering - A private intimate video featuring Ayoung-Chee was stolen from her boyfriend's computer whilst it was undergoing repair and leaked to the the internet in 2009.[1] - Off2riorob (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd still prefer to see no mention of this, but will live with the above. Where in the article? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I still don't support inclusion either but I am feeling endless circular pressure from this dynamic IP - I don't see a good place to put it really, where would it sit best? I think it has undue weight in its own section.Off2riorob (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob, I have already asked you to provide sources to verify the claims made in your statement. Failure to do so actually constitutes a violation of Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policies. There is a world of difference between reporting what was said by one of the involved parties and what you are presenting above. I am asking you, very seriously, to remove or edit your proposed version in each of it's incarnations from this talkpage unless you can provide actual proof of the claims you are presenting as "fact". (Perhaps police records to indicate that the material was actually stolen, or even an article from an RS that says that it was stolen, instead of "Gallery said it was stolen"?) Alternatively please see the version that several of us were discussing above (or even the very old, archived version by Tokek that I placed above for you), as it is verifiable from the cited materials (as was the version you recently removed from the article). Also, the dynamic IP is assigned to me by my ISP, I do not believe that there is any doubt as to which contributions are being made by me, as I seem to be the only one active here with a Trinibagonian IP. If you take issue with my contributions, I ask that you feel very free to request arbitration. Oh, and as for your claim of circular pressure, that's actually quite incorrect IMO. I'm being totally direct and discussing Wikipedia's policies, which you seem to be quite content to ignore or misinterpret when it suits you as far as I can tell. I might be making a whole slew of newbie mistakes, but at the very worst they are newbie mistakes, and don't involve me trying to manipulate Wikipedia's policy pages to meet my interpretations. I very firmly stand behind my earlier statements about WP:CIR btw.186.45.65.85 (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

1. There is enough coverage of this event to establish that a video of Anya Ayoung-Chee having sex was posted on the net.

1. The assertion that the video was leaked by a computer repair man is the unconfirmed explanation of the boyfriend.

1. The video was probably leaked without Anya Ayoung-Chee's consent.

Do both of you, Rob and IP, agree with those points? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I support inclusion of some minor, innocuous statement on the topic. Omitting any mention is inconsistent with what is presented in comparable articles: Vanessa L. Williams and Carrie Prejean. As for the three points immediately above posed by Anthonyhcole (I changed them from bullets to numbered items): I agree with (1). Item (2) seems to be true, although the word "unconfirmed" is not from the sources, is it? Item (3) The phrase "probably leaked ..." ... is not from the sources, is it? How about this for the wording: A private intimate video featuring Ayoung-Chee leaked to the the internet in 2009 - that would avoid speculating about whether the video was or was not stolen, etc. --Noleander (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with 1 and 2, and cannot comment on whether or it was done with her consent, item 3 is also irrelevant to the matter at hand. And again, the issue is NOT one of her having a video showing her having sex on the internet, but the scandal that it caused in the life of (a) public figure(s). That was the original topic of discussion, until it was edited without consensus by Off2riorob. I consider Noleander's most recent suggestion to be considerably more accurate than the ones presented by Rob, but I wish to point out the obvious. By repeatedly removing information in the interest of considerations outside of Wikipedia's policies, we are moving dangerously closer to the claimed "trivia" that Rob and Mike so vehemently opposed. If included in the form that Noleander has most recently suggested, I wouldn't be very surprised if weeks or perhaps months from now, the information was removed as "trivia" by an uninvolved editor with a comment along the lines of "So she has sex, so what? It's how we all got here, get over it." The content deserves to be included specifically because it is obviously a notable scandal, that has been well reported around the world. To divert from placing NPOV material in the interest of "we might cause some form of harm" is NOT in line with WP:DUE, and neither is exclusion of material that is acceptable (and required) according to Wikipedia because we personally may not like the idea of it's inclusion. The considerable delay during the RFC has allowed me to again review the policies and caused me to swing away from my earlier willingness to agree with Anthonyhcole's appeal to empathy. I'm also less inclined to agree to using fewer sources, for fear that there will be those who choose to claim in future, that there was insignificant coverage. Wikipedia, the site that we are on, has very clearly defined policies that detail what sort of content is fit for inclusion, why don't we put all of this to rest and just start following them for a change?

I am willing, though only barely at this point, to accept the version that goes: "Ayoung-Chee filmed a sex tape with long-term boyfriend Wyatt Gallery that was widely leaked to the Internet in 2009. Gallery said the footage was stolen from his computer while undergoing repair." with only two of the RS entries as suggested above, on the condition that the list of articles be included on the Talkpage, or it's archives, in the event that they're needed in the future.186.45.65.85 (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether she consented to the release of the video is important if we are to understand what impact it is likely to have had on her. If she consented, fine. If not, this is akin to rape, and telling people the video is out there is abetting it. Can't you see that? And you still haven't explained what is the good aspect of including this, to counteract the very likely hurt it will achieve. By the way, do you know this woman? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

AnthonyCole, not consenting to a sextape being released that you made with your boyfriend and another girl is absolutely NOTHING akin to rape.Swampfire (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it might be something like rape. But then, we're all blokes here, so probably aren't qualified to comment. I'll ask at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Feminism. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it is "like rape" is irrelevant. The material is not appropriate for a WP:BLP. Per the BLP policy: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." This seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me. Just because there are citations for something doesn't mean it is appropriate to include in a BLP. There is a reason the policy includes sentences like the ones above rather than just repeating the WP:V policy. It is exactly for cases like this. Kaldari (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. There's no way this doesn't breach "... the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari you might want to actually consider reading the whole BLP instead of just the first few lines. If that's too much to ask of established editors, you should at the very least read WP:WELLKNOWN which is a subsection of the BLP. If it's too much to ask that you follow the link, let me quote it for you here, as you were kind enough to furnish your own quote: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. As you say that seems pretty clear-cut to me, and there is quite probably a reason that the policy includes bits like that one. Do you care to take a guess as to what that reason might be?

Anthony, your comparison of us including the information that she was involved in a scandal to rape is akin to saying that CNN, ABC, CBS and news agencies around the world have repeatedly raped her. I'm guessing that they don't share your views. The connection is spurious, and nothing more than an appeal to emotion. As Kaldari pointed out, it's also irrelevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. NOPV, Verifiable material from reliable sources cannot be considered sensationalist. Nor can the proposed inclusions be considered titillating in any way shape or form. Anthonyhcole, for all of the talk of wikipedia providing this information increasing visibility of the tape, I wish to point out that again, for me, the first page worth of google results makes it very clear that the sex tape information is quite prominently displayed for anyone searching for "Anya Ayoung Chee". In short, pretending that it doesn't exist for the sake of our own moral values will not make the notable scandal cease to have existed. The links provided above show that even a local RS is more than willing to mention the scandal as a feature of her life despite it being systematically excluded from Wikipedia for all this time. There are other sources that have done the same. I cannot see how pretending that it does not exist will reduce any potential harm, and the consensus on Wikipedia in general seems to be that such content is noteworthy and has been included in several other Articles. As an aside, it seems that mention of rape (real or otherwise) has also been included on other articles. Off2riorob, one who is staunchly opposed to the inclusion of the mention of the scandal (to the extent of altering the header of the discussion a year after the fact) seemed to be strongly of the opinion that she did not suffer significant harm. This can be verified from his comments above. Now, your turn Anthony. Wouldn't the exclusion of this NPOV, V, NOR, material be in direct opposition to the core principles and policies of Wikipedia? This is not a site to collect information that we LIKE. This is supposed to be an Encyclopedia. Where information relating to subjects can be found. We are not proposing to put the video, or a link to the video in the article. We are discussing mentioning a notable scandal in the life of a public figure. You yourself noted that the policies and guidelines of this site allow for the inclusion of this material. Can you present a clear cut reason that is backed up by actual policy for it's exclusion? If so, please provide a link. PLEASE. I've been asking for that for over a MONTH, and all I get are variations on WP:IDL, Policies that don't actually apply, and run around.186.45.65.85 (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

[undent] Sorry, but I just don't see how the sex tape with her boyfriend is notable and relevant. If she were a porn star or promoting this tape as part of her career, I would call it notable and relevant. As it stands, it's just a titillating news story that was good for boosting ad views at CNN and will be forgotten about as soon as everyone's had there fill of voyeurism. We should look at BLPs from the perspective of a person's entire life, not just whatever the web is interested in at the moment. How does this event relate to her life in a meaningful way? Has she discussed it's impact on her, or has she just tried to explain what happened and moved on? Why do you believe this is important enough to include in an encyclopedia? Does it really help us to understand the subject? So far I'm unconvinced, and thus I think we should err on the side of caution, as the BLP policy dictates. Kaldari (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right, IP. I am addressing emotion. I'm leaving it to others to address relevance and noteworthiness, and they're making a good case that it is trivial. Emotion is real. Emotional harm is real. I believe the likely real emotional harm we would do by including this fact trumps any other argument for or against inclusion. Addressing your points:

• "NOPV, Verifiable material from reliable sources cannot be considered sensationalist." Yes it can.

• "pretending that it doesn't exist for the sake of our own moral values will not make the notable scandal cease to have existed." Yes, mine is an argument about morality. This is not about pretending anything. It's about not compounding harm done to a victim.

• "I cannot see how pretending that it does not exist will reduce any potential harm." Not including a mention in our article can reasonably be expected to send fewer people off on a search for the video than including it would.

• "such content is noteworthy and has been included in several other Articles" The whole point of this discussion is to determine whether it is noteworthy; simply asserting it is misses the point of all this. That other stuff exists, is no argument to put it here. What we determine here may well affect the content on those other articles.

• "Wouldn't the exclusion of this NPOV, V, NOR, material be in direct opposition to the core principles and policies of Wikipedia?" Including it would certainly breach BLP.

I have addressed each of the points you directed to me. Would you return the courtesy? There is a real likelihood that inclusion would compound the hurt, by pointing more people to this video. What actual good would inclusion of this embarrassing but trivial event serve? Do you have any personal connection with the subject? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

@Kaldari, The sex tape is not notable or relevant in and of itself, (unless you like that sort of thing as Off2riorob apparently does according to his contributions far above), nor was it the topic under discussion prior to this edit to the header of the discussion by Off2riorob. I've repeatedly asked why the change was made prior to the opening of the RfC, but have had no reply. What is notable and relevant is the scandal that it caused in the life of (a) public figure(s), which you can see was the actual topic under discussion, and the topic of the previous RfC (which got even less attention than this last one). The scandal was reported on by CNN, ABC, CBS, agencies connected to ANI and local media along with others that would not be considered reliable in and of themselves (TMZ) but may become acceptable for inclusion according to wikipedia's policy based on the reporting in CNN, ABC, CBS, LOCAL MEDIA, etc.(see WP:BLPPRIMARY). Several links to reliable sources have been provided above, and again, should in no way be considered a complete list. The scandal is still being mentioned in the media up to fairly recently. As some of the early commenters pointed out both here and in the archived version the scandal is one of the very few notable things about the subject, and is similar to content on other BLP entries. All of the points that you are raising have ALREADY been addressed several times over on this talk page, I would like to invite you to actually read through it. If you'd like to know what the subject said in her comments to the media, you are free to review the articles linked here or elsewhere and I encourage you to do so. I also wish to openly ask if you actually bothered to read the BLP policy in full, in particular the rather unambiguous piece quoted above which can be found on the BLP via WP:WELLKNOWN? If the material is being presented in an NPOV manner as suggested above, and merely reporting what has been covered by media houses the world over, preventing this information from being included is no longer "erring on the side of caution", but instead WP:IDL all over again. You and others claim that this is titillating trivia. Let me ask you quite plainly, what EXACTLY is titillating you when you read the proposed versions above?

@Anthony, simply claiming "yes it can" does not actually show how, at the very least you're going to have to explain why such material shouldn't be given due weight in an article with very little that can be considered to be due any actual weight at all. Again Wikipedia's (the site we are currently on) policies say that whether or not the subject might like the inclusion of well sourced, NPOV material about the scandals affecting public figures, they should be included. Global coverage in various media is what makes the information noteworthy. That has been shown to have occurred repeatedly in this discussion and links have been provided. Claiming that it's "not noteworthy" does not make it so, and perhaps more importantly, Wikipedia's policy for what is noteworthy doesn't work the same way with content as it does with articles. You can read all about that at WP:NNC and I invite you and others to do so. (That's one of those "policy" things that I've been mentioning.) If we expand on your logic, might we not end up with "nothing unpleasant should be ever be mentioned on Wikipedia, because that might cause people to use the very search engines that most probably brought them to wikipedia in the first place, to find information"? Wikipedia is not censored on emotional grounds according to any of it's policies as far as I can tell. In fact I think you might benefit from reading WP:COMPREHENSIVE which seems to adequately explain why your "emotional" and "moral" appeals are invalid, based on your comments mentioning a neologism above I suspect that you are already highly familiar with the fact that Wikipedia includes content that Public figures may not like and that "could create some sort of harm". Given the existence of that article, I'm fairly certain you are aware of how that played out, and of course that article links to one on a "controversy" which affected a public figure. Perhaps we should consider what was decided THERE and apply it HERE, as it would only be fair to assume that such decisions could flow both ways? Or how about we actually follow wikipedia's policies instead of only the parts that people choose to like? I mean seriously, have you people even read the policies that you claim to be upholding recently?

I'd be happy to address your questions, Anthony.

• The site that you are currently on is called Wikipedia. It's purpose is to compile information relevant to subjects in a NPOV manner according to various policies set down by, Wikipedia itself. These policies are available to read and have been linked to numerous times on this discussion page. Wikipedia is not run by the policies of "do I like it" or "how do I feel about that". Refusal to include WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V content is contrary to the core principles of Wikipedia. I don't know if you can understand this at all, but it seems to me that when you ask "what good does including it do" you're really asking "what exactly is the point of putting ANYTHING on Wikipedia at all". If you thought that including valid, verifiable, npov information in an encyclopedia was a bad thing, you probably wouldn't have registered a screen name. Wikipedia clearly says that mention of well reported scandals affecting public figures should be included in BLPs, whether the subject likes it or not in their WP:BLP policy page (you don't have to believe me, check for yourself, PLEASE).

• Regarding any personal connection with the subject: No, despite being a Trinbagonian I have none other than that I've seen the information in the local and international media (and just between us, Swampfire seems to be more familiar with the actual contents of the videos than I am, as I've never really cared to view them). I don't know her personally, and don't particularly feel one way or the other about the prospect of meeting her personally. I also doubt that Tokek, Noleander, 69.223.185.201, 99.63.190.172, Swampfire, 17.103.181.126, 24.79.211.19, 98.71.94.221 or any of the many others who have attempted to include some form of the information over the last couple of years have any personal connection to the subject, but you'd probably have to ask them. Do you want to give that a shot, might be worth the effort since we've started asking? Oh and I suppose I really ought to ask, since we are just asking, after all..... do YOU have any personal connection to the subject? (I feel like I should be cueing the band to strike up a series of dramatic notes like in the old cliffhangers or something.)

Again I figure that this RfC thing has failed to gain any form of consensus despite Anthony's good efforts, which I really do appreciate even though I clearly don't agree with him. So as a Newbie, I'm asking what's the next step here? What's the next step in getting this thing resolved and how do we go about getting that done?186.45.65.85 (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No I have no connection with the subject. I asked, because you mentioned where you are. There is no chance of the stolen private video being mentioned in this article. The article has been indefinitely semiprotected by one of Wikipedia's most experienced and knowledgeable administrators because of "BLP issues that appear likely to continue." You have been told that the content is not noteworthy or relevant by another highly experienced and knowledgeable administrator. Take their advice. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that she's currently in the USoA which isn't where I am, and it's odd that you give that reason, you see I mentioned my location over a MONTH ago, well before the RfC was opened. While I doubt that you were intentionally trying to mislead me by making the statement about there being "no chance...", you might want to check to see what semi-protection involves before telling the Newbie the wrong thing next time. Here, let me provide the link, WP:SEMI. And I'd really be rather more inclined to take advice, if the experienced and knowledgeable admin had said something on this talk page, rather than an edit comment that really has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. For all I know, they didn't bother to read the content of this talk page. You see, my time on here has shown me that people on this site have a really odd habit of not quite paying attention to what they've read and substituting what they'd like others to believe something means. So again, what's the next step in the process of getting this resolved and how do we go about getting it to start happening before the turn of the century?186.45.65.85 (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Goodbye. I won't be watching this page any more. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

comment

Some mention of her sex tape should be made...just saying... 137.183.232.24 (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This needs to be deleted

This article is pointless. Even though there is information about her to cite it as true, there doesn't need to be an article about someone as irrelevant as Anya Ayoung-Chee. What impact has she made globally? There doesn't need to be an article about her right now maybe in years to come if she manages to do something worthwhile and notable (winning Project Runway is NOT notable). 186.45.114.35 (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It's as notable as anything else that has full articles here.--69.242.205.169 (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that this needs to be deleted based on WP:Notability. While I agree, and have previously stated here, that there's generally little about her that's worthy of note, the subject was a national representative at a well known, well covered, international competition. (More than one if you wish to count the project runway competition.) There's also the matter of the unquestionable international scandal caused by the release of the sex videos, that she's now mentioned openly on a television interview, but given the outcome of the previous RFC's and lack of response about what the next step in resolving the inclusion of the matter, I strongly doubt that it's going to ever see the light of day as long as current sentiment, and lack of interest in following the clearly written policies, prevails.186.45.80.25 (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Archiving things still under discussion

If people are clearly still discussing it up to a couple of weeks ago, as anyone who actually cares can see by the timestamps on the previous comments, you really shouldn't just try to "sweep the whole thing under the rug", as it were. BY the way, she recently made a very public comment about the scandal and the tapes on a filming of a "post runway" show that was done not too long ago. (Even some of my previous contributions also showed that she commented previously, but that was ignored.)

By the way I'm still waiting on a reply as to what the next step required for the inclusion of the cited, NPOV, and blatantly notable, content is. Any suggestions? 186.45.69.38 (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Needs a total rewrite

Either she wrote this herself, or the person who crafted this article did so by cutting and pasting press releases from Ms Ayoung-Chee's management staff. The fact mentioned above that no mention was even made of a fairly prominent happening in her life smacks of censorship, which should disqualify the article entirely. What's the reason for making this piece just a breathless bit of fan-propaganda? Besides ignorance, I mean. 68.56.248.192 (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There have been several attempts made to include mention of the scandal caused by her sex tape. There has been a consistent push over the years for it's non-inclusion, despite being out of line with wikipedia's policies, and purpose. You can find all pertinent info in the archive, including links to reliable sources that covered the scandal. If I had to give a reason, I'd say it's not propaganda so much as blatant and willful incompetence by the "established" wikipedia editors. And that would only be on a day when I was feeling generous.186.45.84.44 (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 March 2012

Adult Film In 2009, a pornographic film was leak onto the internet showing Anya Ayoung-Chee having sex.

76.22.108.198 (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see the archive of this page, where the matter was discussed at length. In addition, any addition of this sort would need to be supported by reliable sources. A simple, unsupported statement like this would be inappropriate in any article, especially a biographical article about a living person, which is subject to stricter standards than most content. Guettarda (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The subject has openly commented on the scandal to the media on multiple occasions at this time. Reliable sources mentioning the scandal caused were provided, including CNN, CBS, ABC and a Trinidadian news source. It would be great if you could specify which of those sources should be considered to be unreliable by wikipedia. Links included in the archived discussion:

http://www.cnngo.com/explorations/none/sex-scandals-asia-139410
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Anya_sex_video__hot__on_Internet-115306464.html
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Anya_to_speak_at_the_right_time-115305454.html
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Anya_fires_New_York_publicist-115300479.html
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/PR_firm_drops_Anya-115299209.html
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Anya_to_star_on_Lifetime_s__Project_Runway_-125676793.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-504083_162-6034829-3.html
http://abcnews.go.com/widgets/mediaViewer/image?id=9117314

Additionally, see what WP:WELLKNOWN says about events which are "notable, relevant, and well-documented... even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". (WP:WELLKNOWN is a part of those strict standards of the BLP policy you cited.) 186.45.68.209 (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the discussion in the archive? There was no consensus for adding the material then. Please review the arguments and, if you believe you have a rationale that addresses the concerns raised, please start a new WP:RFC here. Guettarda (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that your reply above indicated the need for reliable sources, and adherence to wikipedia policy regarding BLP's. I am still curious as to which of the sources is/are to be considered unreliable in the eyes of wikipedia, in your opinion. I have no intention of opening another RFC, as I came to realise that WP:IDL is more important to the "professional Wikipedians" than WP:WELLKNOWN. Such significant scandals have been mentioned in other BLP's; the only argument needed to address the concerns raised is, "Wikipedia exists for just one reason - to write a high quality, freely available encyclopaedia." Assuming that those are reliable sources, and that WP:WELLKNOWN is an actual policy that is worth having, then there is absolutely no reason to exclude NPOV mention of the significant scandal that is a part of the subject's life, one mentioned multiple times by the subject herself.186.45.68.209 (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

My opinions on sources are irrelevant here. I'm simply explaining why I declined your edit request - the matter of adding the material was discussed in the past, and there was no consensus to add it. If you read the discussion, you'll see that the issue wasn't one of whether the sources were reliable. If you aren't willing to start another RFC, then I see nothing further to discuss here. If you want to learn more about the standards for inclusion in WP:BLPs, I suggest you raise the question at the BLP noticeboard. Whatever you choose to do, it is clearly inappropriate for you to cast aspersions on the motives of other editors. You're clearly familiar enough with Wikipedia to pepper your comments with those links, so you should also be familiar enough to realise that your tone is inappropriate. Guettarda (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Might want to look at the IP's again. I didn't request the edit; I did however note that your reason for declining the edit request was that reliable sources are needed (provided in the archive that you told them to read) and you mentioned the strict standards BLP (of which Wellknown is a significant part). The only reason I could see of you talking about the need for reliable sources is that you must have considered some of those sources to be unreliable, or not have realised that they included CNN, ABC, CBS, as well as the Express. I just figured that I'd help you out by showing that both were dealt with by the same archived discussion you were pointing people to. Both of us should probably be considered familiar enough with Wikipedia to realise that a lack of consensus in the past should not, under wikipedia's own policies be taken as a reason for not considering adding something in the future, don't you think? You will note that I didn't edit the answered tag, as it is not my request. Regarding my tone and the aspersions you say that I've cast here I suppose that it may be as you say, but you may wish to reread your own user page and the bit about professional Wikipedians, and consider the similarities and contexts. Either way, I honestly do hope that you take the time to consider those sources you said the request was lacking, and the policies you are actually linking to, instead of operating under the assumption that a lack of consensus amongst "professional Wikipedians" in the past is a sign of the way things should be. For all I know, you might even consider them, and the actual policies of the BLP, so much that you open a RFC on the matter. Whether you do or don't, I truly hope that you have a great day. 186.45.68.209 (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. I did however note that your reason for declining the edit request was that reliable sources are needed - not true. I said in addition to my stated reason for declining the edit request, info like this needs to be reliably sourced. It was a general bit of advice to the IP. As for the "professional Wikipedians" comment - check my edit history. I edit articles, first and foremost. This one just happens to be on my watchlist because I tend to keep an eye on TT-related articles. Guettarda (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I neither said nor implied that you don't edit articles. I was pointing out the irony of the quotation and the stance taken to oppose the addition of material that I suspect you undoubtedly already know to be factual, AND well reported in both global and local media. In so doing, you actively participate in preventing others from editing and adding factual material, whose inclusion is unquestionably supported by the very policies cited in an attempt to keep it out. Consider the edit history of the article, and the "vandalism" that got the semi-protect status in the first place. Almost ALL of it involved attempts to add some form of mention of material that we both know exists, and caused a significant scandal in the life of a public figure who is considered to be worthy of a wikipedia entry. Ironic, isn't it? BTW, are you saying that your refusal of the edit request was based on a "previous lack of consensus"? Because if that's the case, I advise you to read WP:CCC, if it's based on your view of the strict BLP policy I suggest you reread WP:WELLKNOWN, and if it's based on the lack of reliable sources, I suggest you consider that numerous sources were provided quite some time ago and that they are by no means a complete list. Again, it all boils down to: "Wikipedia exists for just one reason.....". 186.45.68.209 (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I certainly haven't changed my view on the matter. It's not noteworthy. It's sleazy trivia. We don't do that. We're an encyclopedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

186: I neither said nor implied that you don't edit articles - you referenced the comment on my user page twice, so I presumed you'd read it. My mistake. I advise you to read WP:CCC - as I said: "if you believe you have a rationale that addresses the concerns raised, please start a new WP:RFC here". Which is a simple way of saying the same thing you were. Do or do not. But stop talking about what you would do, and stop it with the comments about conspiracies and the implications that other editors are acting in bad faith. Guettarda (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Anthony: Whether the scandal was noteworthy was determined long ago by the global media, not our personal likes or dislikes, so your proclamaition of "not noteworthy" and "we're an encyclopedia" are neither here nor there. Once again: the subject spoke to a global audience about the matter at the end of her project runway stint. And Wikipedia's standards for notability are fairly clearly against your stance. Wikipedia also seems to have very different views on what we "do" compared to what you seem to think we "do", don't you think? If she felt it noteworthy enough to mention to the world, and the media considered the scandal noteworthy enough for major news outlets to mention it, what purpose is there in opposing it's addition to this article apart from WP:IDL? Oh! There I go with the conspiracies and implications again.

Guettarda: Funny, I'd presumed you'd read it too. I haven't tried to imply bad faith recently, but if that's how you read it, I accept that as your view. I was attempting to show you some things regarding an article on which you'd very recently refused an edit request, but at this point I've pretty much given up trying to figure out what actual policies you were basing that on. BTW, I'll take your advice and stop talking at this point. Have a great day. 186.45.68.209 (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Basic policy is WP:CON, though WP:BLP also applies. I am not about to edit a biography article against consensus to add an uncited negative statement. I'm not stupid enough to try something like that. Policy for that? Common sense doesn't need a supporting policy, but if you insist, I can always go with Wikipedia:Administrators#Care_and_judgement. As for WP:CCC - that's a subsection of WP:CON, and policies are to be read as a whole. Consensus is not unchangeable and matters that have been discussed in the past can be raised again. But read the policy as a whole, and you'll realise that this doesn't mean that prior consensus expires after a few weeks. Rather, if you read on you'll see especially if there are new arguments or circumstances that were not properly considered before. Which is why I pointed the anon to the archives. So that they could read the prior discussion and perhaps move forward in an informed manner. Guettarda (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait I don't understand... I don't care what "consensus" was, or if it's negative or not. Wikipedia adds information that's reliable, and noteworthy... period. Is there reliable sources? Yes. Is it noteworthy? She's mentioned, articles have mentioned, media has mentioned it. If Kim Kardashian and countless others have "sex tape" or whatever to their article, why is this any different? But really, what bothers me, is that I heard about this, came to Wikipedia to read about it, to see if it was true or not, and there was no mention... Anytime something is WELL KNOWN and isn't on Wikipedia it just makes us look stupid, the point is a place where all noteworthy/verifiable information is located... So why is any user, regardless of level, able to say "This is just sleazy trivia"? OBVIOUSLY an opinion. Why do we have to "change his mind?". Trivia is just another word for information. Encyclopedias are all about information, so yes, we will have clean, dirty, sleazy, unethical, informative, random, and all sorts of "trivia". The fact that there HAS been discussion about this means it has been noteworthy enough that some people talked about it... Wiki has become more and more about deleting information and article, I used to think this was a place where I could find any verifiable information about anything, now it seems unless someone won an Oscar or a Nobel Prize, they're not "notable"... If an article or information isn't a lie, I don't see why we should delete anything... This is just sad :/ 71.174.82.182 (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

2 porn tapes?

I saw two. One with an Asian chick. The other with just Anya Ayoung-Chee. Why isn't this added yet? I can add it but I get the feeling that someone's going to take it down because I don't have encyclopedia vocabulary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.176.207 (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

non encyclopedic wording and typo

" Not only that, she also was featured in a fashion spread in Marie Claire and received a $50,000 technology suite by HP and Intel for the chance to design and sell merchandise, as well as a parthership with Piperlime.com"

Non encyclopedic phrasing, and partnership is spelled incorrectly Freshmangomango (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This article has major content issues and appears to have been re-written by a professional publicist. Having reviewed the archive, I'm still not clear on why the scandal has been removed. It has been published repeatedly in reliable sources, was connected with both her claims to notability, and discussed and admitted by the subject herself in her Project: Runway interview. An RfC failed to reach consensus apparently due to one editor's claim that any mention at all constituted undue weight-- and the result was that the mention was scrubbed and the sources removed, then the discussion archived.

I can see the strong argument for not including a mention on the other alleged participant's bio. In that case, her participation was denied by Ms. Ayoung-Chee and her boyfriend, and the claim appears to be unsubstantiated. However, there's no good argument not to include it here. According to her interview on Project Runway, it had a strong impact on her reputation and was a partial motivation for her entry into both fashion and the TV show. Pageant scandals like this are included on other participants' pages as a matter of course, and it's considered notable for other celebrities with sex tape scandals. Her primary defender claimed that they would argue for the removal of those other references-- but two years later, their only interest appears to have been patrolling Ms. Ayoung-Chee's bio.

Lest we re-open a can of worms, I'd like to hammer out some good, solid, non-sordid phrasing for this on the talk page before adding it. "There's no consensus, therefore scrub the article" isn't a wikipedia policy. 131.96.47.17 (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I assume you're referring to the stolen tape. Since you've read the archive you'll be well aware that the consensus did not support inclusion. If you think people's views on that may have changed, leave a note on the talk page of all those involved in the prior discussions inviting them to discuss it again. If you would like to attract wider participation, open a request for comment here also. Do not add that sleazy trivia to the article without evidence of a strong consensus in favour. We take WP:BLP very seriously. Adding content which may be hurtful or harmful to a biography subject when you know the current consensus does not support inclusion will likely result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

OK this is exactly what I'm talking about. Less than 25 minutes after I posted a request for discussion, I receive an (empty) threat of a perma-ban. I don't have time to patrol pages that aggressively, so sorry for the belated response.

I am quite familiar with the policies on BLP. That's something that should be obvious since I took pains in my first post to justify the inclusion in terms of BLP criteria: the material is both reliably sourced (including from the subject herself) and notable. Having read the archive, as I said, there appeared to be consensus for inclusion except from one editor (you), who argued that any mention at all was undue weight. The dispute seemed mostly to revolve around ensuring that the phrasing was limited to established facts and was not over-long. An RfC on the subject was held but expired. I still have yet to see you argue this on other pages where this situation has come up-- your interest seems confined entirely to Ms. Ayoung-Chee. You seem very emotional about this subject, but please limit yourself to arguing the substance of the dispute rather than assuming bad faith or threatening the ban-hammer. This issue keeps coming up, from a variety of editors, and will continue to do so until we find an appropriate resolution. I'm willing (eager) to work with you to come up with something that's true/fair/non-defamatory/brief. 131.96.47.17 (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Failure to mention scandal

Why doesn't this wiki entry talk about the sex tape she was in? It is common public record.

I raised this question (again) a couple months ago and it just got archived. Basically, there's one guy who says that any mention of it at all, regardless of the sources, is undue weight. That editor hasn't bothered intervening in any other celebrity pages that mention sex tape scandals, including those which were leaked and involved a beauty pageant contestant, but patrols this one pretty aggressively. It went to ArbCom and didn't get enough votes, and that guy was the lone holdout for not including it in the page discussion. So it wasn't changed, due to lack of consensus. link here. When I brought it up, he threatened me with a perma-ban for suggesting it (he's not an admin).

The current version of her bio reads like it was written by a professional publicist. I'm interested in coming up with language to mention it in a neutral, well-sourced way without using undue weight, but I'm a part-time editor and don't have time to wage a wiki-lawyering battle alone. If nothing else, I suggest waiting until the new guidelines on undisclosed contributions by paid PR firms is passed. 131.96.47.17 (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I just tried adding back the section, and it was immediately reverted within minutes by user Anthonyhcole(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anthonyhcole). Apparently some folks have it on the watch-list, specifically to remove that section from being added. Is that the same user as mentioned above? Considering how pivotal this incident was, in shaping of her subsequent career and life, a fact attested by several interviews given by herself and her family (the question is popped regularly to her), it should be included, although in as neutral a language as possible. Abhisri (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion about this has been archived here. The comment above is from an editor involved in that discussion who knows the arguments. By all means read that discussion and, if you think the media representation of the event has changed since then (I don't know - I haven't been following it), or you can present a more persuasive argument, then please make the case on this talk page.

If the incident has had a significant impact, and you can link to enough online coverage in reliable sources, then you may well persuade me and the others in that archived discussion. Please don't restore it before arriving at consensus, though. It's bedtime here. I'll look in again tomorrow.

Abhisri's proposed edit is a new section titled "Sex tape scandal"

Ayoung-Chee reportedly filmed a sex tape with long-term boyfriend Wyatt Gallery in 2007 that was widely leaked to the Internet. Gallery claimed the footage was stolen from his computer while undergoing repair. Although viewers initially claimed that the second female in the film was another Miss Universe finalist (Hiroko Mima), Gallery claimed that it was just a close friend (ref= http://www.cnngo.com/explorations/none/sex-scandals-asia-139410 )

--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I will be happy to do as per your request. I will also NOT restore the edit, before a consensus is arrived, as per your request. I am including the only thing resembling a decision/discussion in terms of wikipedia policies in question btw, from the archive. Looks like you had missed same.

===================================================

#WP:BLP is not violated. The article on CNNGO was cited inline, meeting the requirements of WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:CITE

#WP:PRIMARY is met. The inclusion of the less reliable source where an exclusive was given by creator of the video becomes acceptable under WP:PRIMARY because of the secondary, reliable source, CNNGO. If issue was taken with the use of the less reliable source, that source should have been removed, as opposed to the whole entry, as suggested by the user who included it See: article edit history.

#WP:Nn is not applicable in this case as it is a subsection of the article and is not required to be met, the fact that it appears on the CNNGO article covers the notability requirement for content adequately.

#WP:NPOV is met. The removed text clearly does not violate WP:NPOV and cannot be considered to be titillating in any way.:

Sex Tape Scandal

Ayoung-Chee filmed a sex tape with long-term boyfriend Wyatt Gallery in 2007 that was widely leaked to the Internet. Gallery claimed the footage was stolen from his computer while undergoing repair. Although viewers initially claimed that the second female in the film was another Miss Universe finalist (Hiroko Mima), Gallery claimed that it was just a close friend

• - http://www.tmz.com/2009/11/18/miss-universe-wyatt-gallery-anya-ayoung-chee-miss-japan
• - http://www.styleite.com/media/project-runway-sextape
• - http://www.cnngo.com/explorations/none/sex-scandals-asia-139410
• - http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Anya_sex_video__hot__on_Internet-115306464.html
• - http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Anya_to_speak_at_the_right_time-115305454.html
• - http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Anya_fires_New_York_publicist-115300479.html
• - http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/PR_firm_drops_Anya-115299209.html
• - http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Anya_to_star_on_Lifetime_s__Project_Runway_-125676793.html
• - http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-504083_162-6034829-3.html
• - http://abcnews.go.com/widgets/mediaViewer/image?id=9117314

This closely matches what can be found in the article on CNNGO, meeting the final requirement for WP:BLP

In my understanding of the matter I can see no further barriers in the Wikipedia policies to the inclusion of this material.

Finally, if I must assume WP:GOODFAITH then I believe that I must question WP:CIR wrt Bias, particularly in the case of user Off2riorob. Please pay special attention to his comments in the archived discussion and the current discussion. The user has been removing this content for so long that he has what appears to be a very strong bias against it's inclusion in the article, regardless of what measures have been taken to ensure that the material meets all of the requirements for WP:BLP as it currently does.

Additional relevant information from local media generally not inclined to publishing base gossip here, here here and here186.45.113.90 (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

================================================================

In addition I include the following based on her own interviews, considering the significant impact of the incident on her life and career

• - [3]http://www.newsday.co.tt/news/0,150137.htm
• - [4]http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/62934351.html
• - [5]http://www.realitytea.com/2011/11/04/project-runway-winner-anya-ayoung-chee-talks-fashion-learning-to-sew-and-sex-tape-scandal/
• - [6]http://www.jayblessed.com/2011/09/18/exclusive-interview-anya-dishes-on-project-runway-her-passion-for-design-overcoming-a-scandal/
• - [7]http://islandistas.com/2011/11/06/a-salute-to-mothers-like-michele-jodhan-ayoung-chee/

To quote from last link - "“No one gave her the benefit of the doubt, she lost innumerable jobs, she was alienated, people did not want to be associated with her. They moved away from her, including friends, including family members. It was absolutely dreadful, she was totally alienated, well not totally, significantly."

I would argue that it is clear that losing innumerable jobs did significantly impact her, as claimed by her own mother. She is no longer harmed however, due to the quote of her own mother again, she has recovered completely due to her involvement in the Project Runaway - "“Listen, something happens tomorrow they’ll ditch Anya, you know. People could go right back there. Right now she’s flying high, she’s everybody’s glory girl, but I really wonder, I challenge people to have that courage and to have that solidarity when things… people are human, we are all human, we are complex, layered and we all live in contradiction.”"

More importantly, all the recent interviews that one may Google for her, specifically bring up the scandal as linked above and she responds admirably. Considering that the information is permanently available on internet and can easily be googled/searched for, there is no purpose solved by omitting an event that was as significant as quoted above, on her life and that is still being brought up in her interviews. The info is not going anywhere from the net, but omission will keep people questioning the bias on the article. It is much better to just keep a minimalistic mention one line mention "Ayoung-Chee reportedly filmed a sex tape with long-term boyfriend Wyatt Gallery in 2007 that was widely leaked to the Internet." with a single link, without embellishing it up more than it deserves. But I argue against blanket censorship. The reason against censorship and BLP objections are more eloquently argued above as quoted Abhisri (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on the above links, I think this is something we can now include. I'm not yet convinced that we should, though. Let's invite the earlier commenters to reconsider their positions in light of the elapsed time and later coverage. May I suggest we first just ask, "Should it be mentioned?" and, if there is agreement on that, we can then discuss how best to do that? (If you think that's an appropriate way forward, I'll be happy to do the notifying. Off2RioRob is presently blocked from editing Wikipedia, so he won't be joining us.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, there's a question of WP:WEIGHT. It's a very short article. Anything more than a bare mention of the tape would create a section comparable in length to the Miss Universe or Project Runway sections. By definition, the sex tape is less notable than the reason anyone cared about the tape in the first place (that she was a Miss Universe contestant). I find it hard to envision what due coverage of that would be in an article this short. Guettarda (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that, if we mention it, it needs to be just a mention, and that any more than just a mention would be giving it far too much weight relative to the article's size. Should we request comment from the earlier commenters and perhaps the Biographies of living people noticeboard? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)