Jump to content

Talk:Belle Knox/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Real name?

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/542179/20140307/porn-star-belle-knox-reveals-identity.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/wayne-k-spear/duke-porn-star_b_4905934.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/belle-knox-how-the-duke-university-law-student-became-one-of-the-most-searched-for-people-on-the-internet-9174254.html

http://hollywoodlife.com/2014/03/06/duke-porn-star-belle-knox-identity-revealed-who-is-she/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/duke-porn-star-belle-knox-sex-workers-article-1.1712359

Her real name is mentioned in all of these articles. Please add it to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.154.112.207 (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. She clearly tried to keep her online and offline personas separate, and went public only because she was outed. At least for now I believe we should err on the side of privacy as the BLP says, and simply see how this matter develops. Bjelleklang - talk 21:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I also disagree with using the name stated in the articles. The problem is that none of those places have really said how they identified her. Without Knox herself or one of her family members identifying her, all we have is an alleged name. Some of the stuff I've seen as far as evidence go is fairly convincing, but there have been a lot of people making fake accounts for her so we can't guarantee that this is her name because it could easily be someone who created a fake account based upon something someone else said. It's extremely likely that the media outlets are all using information taken from one of the various anonymous forums or websites that decided to try to find and dox Knox. Those sites are not infallible and there have been incidents where even the best internet sleuths and trolls have gotten information wrong. Basically, we can't automatically assume that because it was printed somewhere in the news, that an identity is automatically that person. For example, the media ran with the idea that Ryan Lanza was the identity of the Sandy Hook shooter... only for it to be that it was his brother Adam, who had stolen his ID card. There are a lot of ways as to how someone can be mistaken for someone else, so until we have a more official confirmation, we shouldn't add Knox's suspected real name. That's just not how it works here. That Knox has been exceedingly careful to NOT release her own name in the media is something that we should also respect on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I've removed someone's post that gives what the media is reporting her IRL name to be. Please do not post any assumptions about who you believe it to be. The media has very, very frequently gotten things wrong and until Knox herself has reported her name, do not post anything that you believe to be the real name. We need more than just someone online claiming that she is Sally Smith of Everytown, USA and we cannot go by what the news is reporting because again- they have gotten identities wrong. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The origin of all the stories proclaiming her real name seems to be this article in the Daily Mail. Incidentally, while I realize WP:BLPPRIVACY is important and everything, but it seems like special pleading to say that "Yes, reliable sources are saying her name, but they might be wrong because they've been wrong about this or that person's real name in the past." Additionally, since the BLPPRIVACY section itself says that "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources," and since this is clearly the case here, I think that including Knox's real name is probably a good idea. However, just in case, I would like to offer a compromise by suggesting that we say that her name has been reported to be (real name withheld), rather than flat-out stating it as fact. Jinkinson talk to me 15:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

INCLUDE THE NAME - I support including her name in the article. Why do we not include her name when the press doesn't think she shouldn't be named--including in the media where she uses her own name or is addressed by her real name. Add another source that refers Ms. Weeks and addressed the illogic of calling this a "privacy" issue. The tenor of the media in the last week has been shifting away from referring to her as "a Duke University student turned porn star who went by Belle Knox" to addressing her as "<removed for privacy>, a Duke University student turned porn star who went by Belle Knox". The media have shifted to calling Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning and so has Wikipedia. She's no different from any other entertainer who takes a stage name (i.e. Natalie Herschlag, aka Natalie Portman; Thomas Mapother = Tom Cruise; Divine the drag queen, etc.). Self-censorship sucks and to remove a name that the world already knows, the press has confirmed and consistently reported is self-censorship no matter how you slice it.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I've removed the name because at this moment, it's still considered to be a WP:BLP issue. If the consensus is to add what is suspected to be her real name, then I have no problem with her name being listed here. Until then we shouldn't list it here. We all know what the name is supposed to be, but right now we have BLP issues with it. For what it matters, I do believe that this is her name. I just think that given that she's asked for her name to not be circulated and that so far we've not had her name listed in anything but stuff like the DM, it'd be worth going through a consensus. It might be special treatment, but she's specifically asked it multiple times in the press and most of the more reputable news sites have not listed her real name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Now, the Spokane Spokesman-Review has used her real name. Arbor to SJ (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

As have The Seattle Times, The Los Angeles Times, the New York Daily News and the New York Post, all of which are linked to the discussion further down on this page Talk:Belle Knox#Add name, or delete article. As I've said in the discussion there, I'm not sure that's enough to warrant inclusion of her name in the article, but there are certainly now reliable sources containing it. Ncjon (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing names

For the IP who posted, the reason we're removing the name is that it is a gross violation of our BLP policy. Please stop re-adding it or I will be forced to take further action. It is not censorship. It's following policy for the above listed reasons. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

No, WP:BLPNAME is not being grossly violated when multiple reliable sources report on her name. I would consider that being widely disseminated. Every other porn star article that has reliable sources verifying their real names includes them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but she also is not officially put out her name, so we would be violating her wishes by doing so, not to mention the process that got her name wasn't necessarily the same as just asking her. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

From a verifiability standpoint, we certainly have reliable sources for her real name. However, we might still keep it out for privacy reasons, per WP:BLPNAME. —Ashley Y 22:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

  • My concern is primarily that none of the newspapers have actually stated how they discovered Knox's name. Did they find this themselves or are they just taking what is getting passed around on the anonymous forums? Has anyone who knows Knox personally (friends, family, professors, etc) confirmed that this is her? So far all I'm seeing is that news outlets are claiming that Knox is so-and-so, yet never saying how they know. Given the whole Ryan and Adam Lanza thing and that internet people have been wrong in the past when it came to doxing people, it's not unreasonable to want to wait until we have something beyond someone listing Knox's name without actually confirming their sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I mean, I do think that the name the media is giving is correct but I can't verify its validity because so far neither she nor anyone that personally knows her (even if in just an academic or casual setting) has confirmed that this is her identity. At least not in a setting that would be considered reliable per our guidelines. Because of this and because Knox herself has openly stated that she doesn't want her real name to be passed around, I don't think that it should be used anywhere on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • We also have to ask if anything is gained by adding this to the article. To be honest... nothing is gained. That's not what people know her as and given that she has specifically said she wants her real name to remain private really does make me think we should respect that wish. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Leave it out, at least for now. It really does nothing but potential harm a real human being, and the article is fine without it. It may also be worth noting that what if we get the name wrong? Then we are causing real world harm to the wrong person. To me it's all a lose-lose situation. I've removed the birthday presented, the source used is not acceptable. That is also information that leads to identity theft. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Formatting

I don't know how long this article will last, but I've just done some formatting so that this article matches similar articles about other porn stars. If this article survives and the subject goes on to do other notable things, then it can be modified and updated. In the mean time, it needs to be consistent with the rest of WP. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Creation of redirect by Plot Spoiler

It seems as though Plot Spoiler created a redirect to this page from Knox's real name: [1] Should it be deleted, given the apparent strict policy of not mentioning her real name? Jinkinson talk to me 21:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Should we include Knox's real name?

There is a pretty large amount of support for not including her name in the article, so there is no need to continue dragging this out any more than it needs to be. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Given the considerable amount of debate that has already occurred here on this topic, I think we should have an RFC to decide whether her name should be included. Jinkinson talk to me 21:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I'm going to say no. Now hear me out: I know that places are dropping her name, but so far none of them have said how they know that Knox is Jane Doe. (Not putting her real name for the sake of privacy.) To be quite honest, I think that most of them pulled her name from the forums and various trolling sites that has been listing her name and other private details. None of the papers have stated that they got Knox's name from researching and verifying Knox's name through her school, her friends, family, or other people who could be considered a reliable source of identification. Knox herself has not come out and given her real name and she's openly stated that she doesn't want it circulated. (Of course this would hold less water once her name becomes publicly confirmed via openly cited sources.) If someone can find a paper where someone who knows Knox has confirmed her real name, then that would go a long way towards changing my opinion on this. Most of my reasons for opposing the addition of her name is simple verifiability. Unless the papers say where they got the name from and stated that they did the research to confirm the name and information floating around the Internet, we shouldn't use it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Plus it's also a little telling that other than a few international papers, most of the places that are listing her name could be considered gossip papers. (Daily Mail, etc.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It's just that we have to be very, very careful about this. Listing it could do more harm than it could do good. We need to make sure that if we list it, we have our butts covered pretty thoroughly. Will something bad likely happen? Probably not, but the last thing I want is for someone to say that we're encouraging all of the bullying and harassment by listing Knox's real name here when so far the only places that have listed it aren't exactly the greatest of sources. I don't think that Knox can infinitely bottle the genie as far as her real name goes, and for what it matters, I don't think that the name is incorrect. I just want more verification that the name is correct. Even if we did, as a suggestion above says, list that she was suspected to be Jane Doe, we would still run the risk of sounding like a gossip site. We need confirmation. Now if one of the more reliable papers were to list this, then I'd be more comfortable putting her name on here.
Plus we also have to ask if we're actually gaining anything by listing her name here. Since the lion's share of the coverage doesn't include her real name, we're not really adding anything to the page at this stage. The thing to remember is that we're not here to write the news, we're here to record what has gone on in reliable sources. We need this covered in more reliable sources for it to be a more comfortable addition as far as I'm concerned. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above and the fact that we would only start to look more like a gossip news site if we did include her name. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not right now - as per Tokyogirl comment. Mosfetfaser (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Leave it out, at least for now. It really does nothing but potential harm a real human being, and the article is fine without it. It may also be worth noting that what if we get the name wrong? Then we are causing real world harm to the wrong person. To me it's all a lose-lose situation. I've removed the birthday presented, the source used is not acceptable. That is also information that leads to identity theft. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We can use it when she uses it herself, or when multiple reliable New York Timeses use it. Till then, no. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for much the same reasons as Tokyogirl79 above. Most of the sources giving her name which I've seen, attribute it to blogs and forums. So far I haven't seen a single source mention how they obtained her name or how they confirmed her identity. We are supposed to evaluate our sources and separate between reliable and unreliable sources, and for this specific bit of information I haven't seen a single reliable source yet. Bjelleklang - talk 09:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The sources for her real name are extremely vague at this point. It may well be her name -- and I'm inclined to believe that it is -- but the sourcing is just too spotty right now to be considered reliable. This change rapidly, however, and if/when it does become reliably sourced, the name then should be included (with whether the article stays Belle Knox as titled or not depending on the common usage). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • ADD THE NAME' -- <removed for privacy and potential BLP vio> can't put herself out there as a porn star, get reported on substantially in the press, and then cry for privacy saying she doesn't want anything public. Completely illogical to self-censor or buy this nonsense claim of "I never wanted to be known".--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Please do not drop her suspected real name here at this point in time. This topic is about whether or not the name should be anywhere on Wikipedia, which includes the talk page as well as any redirects. Until a proper consensus has been reached, her name should not be listed on here. Having a discussion as to whether or not to add the name does not mean that we should start listing her name here, as that defeats the entire purpose of having this discussion. I also have to say that essentially saying that "she should know better, she doesn't deserve privacy" is not exactly a good justification. We need to talk about whether adding the name adds anything to the page, whether or not it's been used in multiple high quality reliable sources, and whether or not the potential harm to Knox would justify adding it. So far not many of the bigger publications have used her real name. All we have are borderline tabloids and international papers that have been pretty much copying the tabloids. We need more than that before we could really say that her name should be used in this article, otherwise we run the risk of looking like a gossip rag or one of those forums that name drops her. It's not as simple as saying "yup, she shouldn't expect privacy". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • This isn't a no, we should never put her name on here. It's no for right now. In my opinion, we need it covered in more of the bigger sources before we can really justify adding it. I have full expectations that as time passes, Knox's real name will be covered in some of the bigger publications, either from her loosening her stance on not using her real name or by the media figuring that they don't have to honor the promise years later. We need to be very, very careful here so that we don't come across as callous people who figure that because she's a porn star, that her name is fair game. We need it verified in more reliable sources than there has been so far, that way we can both cover our hides as far as verifiability goes and make sure that people don't assume that we're trying to give her the same treatment that people on Twitter or the forums are trying to give. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Gossip aside, what would we even gain from listing her name here or moving the article? Anyone who is curious and who has access to a decent search engine can attempt to research the topic and make their own assumptions about what is there. If we put her supposed real name here and are proven wrong, then we look like idiots. If we put it here and are proven right, then we're still idiots, because she not only doesn't want to be identified by her birth name, but no one close to her has even confirmed that this is indeed her name. Let's just respect her wishes and move on with this article, as consensus is clearly against adding her supposed real name to the article at this time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is "outed" the best word?

Given that the definition of "outed" is given by both our page on the topic and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as revealing that someone is homosexual, and that this did not happen here, I question whether we should say that Knox was "outed." Maybe it would be better to say that "it was revealed that she was a porn star" instead, and use this phrasing wherever we currently use variants of the word "outing." Jinkinson talk to me 19:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Outed, et al, are used beyond just LGBT definitions, so are perfectly acceptable. The term was also used by a couple of sources in this exact case so I think we're fine. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Sport is correct, its used beyond the LGBT community. At least one instance I know of is with the swinger and BDSM communities when its revealed that someone participates in either activity without their knowledge or consent. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Be exceedingly careful in adding external links. Not only do we want to avoid EL clutter, but we also want to try to avoid linking to potentially false accounts. Multiple news outlets have reported that people have created accounts purporting to be Knox, so we need to ensure that all accounts are actually hers. This is probably going to be difficult in some instances, as we would essentially need them to predate the news stories and online chatter about her. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but if its one of the production companies she works for doing it, it could be done with her permission, but not necessarily directly by here. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead

I just moved the second paragraph of the Lead back to the Personal life section as what is there now pretty much sums up the article and IMO establishes WP:Notability for Knox. Also, the second paragraph comes across a little "preachy". I think its fine in the section I've moved it to, but erring on the side of being somewhat conservative to avoid accusations of WP:SOAPBOX and WP:UNDUE seems to be a prudent move at this point until we see how this story develops. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No comment on the undue concerns but I feel the move is fine. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, I can understand the move back, but lets try to keep this from becoming a WP:SOAPBOX. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Add name, or delete article

First, I think there is absolutely sufficient proof that she is who people claim she is. Ex http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/devout-catholic-dad-returns-home-from-afghanistan-to-find-daughter-is-a-porn-star/story-fnixwvgh-1226851020842 (for a time, this was the FIRST GOOGLE SEARCH RESULT for 'belle knox'). That link has interviews with family members who are on record with their real names. I think that's definitive.

Second, her "privacy" should not be the concern of wikipedia. For one, as a porn star, she is showing her body to the world; the concept of "privacy" is quaint. If Wikipedia was so concerned about respecting privacy" wishes, and not adding anything at all unless it's 100% certain, then large parts of the Satoshi Nakamoto article should be deleted as well.

Finally, she is only notable because her real name was revealed publicly. And if Wikipedia is unwilling to reveal her name, then this article has no reason to exist. Delete it.

I find the behaviour of some wikipedia editors (not only reverting edits, but DELETING THEM FROM HISTORY) to be frankly Orwellian. We are at war with Eastasia. We've always been at war with Eastasia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.182.230 (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

ALSO.. why does Wikipedia think it appropriate to "out" the person who outed her??! What a double standard!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.182.230 (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

  • We have confirmation that his name is Bagley, so it's not really the same instance as Knox. If he were to make a public request that his name not be used anymore in the news, then we would take that into consideration here. As far as removing versions of the article, Knox's supposed real name is a BLP issue. Not only has she requested that it not be used anywhere, but we have yet to have any direct and repeat confirmation in highly reliable sources about the name from Knox, her family, or anyone that knows her. The problem with international news is that very, very often they aren't actually getting this information themselves but instead mirroring it from other papers- in this case the Daily Mail, a newspaper that is not held in very high esteem by anyone. If places such as News.com.au were to interview people themselves and get this information from a source that knows Knox IRL and can verify the claims, then that would be a different story. In any case, the lack of her supposed real name on the article does not mean that it's invalid. She's still notable. Just because she has starred in pornography does not mean that she cannot request privacy and expect that people would be decent enough to honor the request. So far the majority of mainstream press that we would consider to be a reliable source has not revealed her name. The sources that have revealed the name that is being used on the Internet have not actually done the research themselves to actually verify the name. Again, this is a BLP issue and the previous consensus was to not add the name to the article per WP:BLP. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
There are reliable, American media sources that pass Wikipedia's reliability standards that have used her real name. It is false to claim that the name is not available in reliable media. There may be an argument for not using it, but that is not it. Example: Scrutinized Duke student and porn actress is G-Pep graduateNcjon (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you link to any other articles you feel meet the strict standard we seek to out a teenage woman on Wikipedia as a porn star? I don't readily accept The Spokane-Review as they don't seem to have an editorial team. My hunch is that they are repeating news from other news outlets. I think we need strong sources. As well, we would be essentially outing her entire family, I'm in no rush to do that. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think The Spokesman-Review doesn't have an editorial team. It is and has been the newspaper of record for Spokane for more than 100 years. Here's a Los Angeles Times article using her real name, though, since you don't accept her hometown newspaper as reputable: Is 'Duke Porn Star' Belle Knox a feminist or a troubled young womanNcjon (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I got the idea from their website, so I appreciate you linking to the Wikipedia article, which does link me to where it shows the publication does have an editor. Even so, it's not clear where they are getting their information. I don't dismiss them just because they are allegedly her hometown newspaper, nor did I say they were disreputable, just not quite to the higher standard we're looking for before outing a teenager as a porn worker, on the world's top website for biography information. What we report here is broadcast worldwide. I would be much more comfortable if Knox outed herself clearly, Wikipedia needs to be cautious in this matter. The LA Times is a great newspaper but that is an opinion piece, and a very slanted one at that. i don't think it will fly either but i appreciate you looking for sources that might resolve the issue. Sportfan5000 (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
If you read the Spokesman-Review article, it's clear that they spoke directly to her. There is also an updated version of the article here Duke University freshman, porn star graduated from Gonzaga Prep that includes her high school yearbook photo. The same article was picked up and run in The Seattle Times as you can see here [2] As for the LA Times article, opinion pieces pass through the same level of fact-checking scrutiny as regular articles. Saying that because it's an opinion piece that uses her name means its not reliable is strange. The facts don't change. It's not the author's opinion of what her real name is. Here are a couple more mainstream American media articles that also use her real name Duke University porn star Belle Knox denies report that her parents are heartbroken, A porn star is born - with support from Duke University. So at this point she has been identified by her real name in The Spokesman-Review, The Seattle Times, The Los Angeles Times, New York Post and New York Daily News. Ncjon (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
First off, we are in no rush here so please wait until there is consensus for Wikipedia outing her.

I have read the article, and it is not clear at all if they spoke with her, which looks doubtful actually. They are regurgitating other outlets apparently.

The NY Daily News article actually supports that she is guarding privacy, specifically her family, and anything that identifies her, outs the family. The story also notes that Knox denied talking to another news reporter who claims they did speak. So we already have media reports conflating on who has said what and when. I don't see her explicitly outing herself there either. She has freely talked about many aspects very personal to her so I think she should be the one to simply acknowledge, this is my real name.

NY Post is another opinion piece, and a rather unpleasant one, taking pot shots at everyone. I wouldn't use it, and they offer nothing that hasn't been covered elsewhere, which is often true with opinion pieces. So no, still not yet. And no to any other gems from her life that can be used to easily identify her. The article doesn't need it, and we're being cautious as to not out her. Sportfan5000 (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you missed this line in the article "'My family stands by me and supports me,' [Knox] wrote in a text message Tuesday. 'People can criticize me all they want, but ultimately this was my choice, not my family’s, and they need to be left out of this.'" Regardless, your supposition about opinion articles is quite strange. WP:Reliability looks at three things - the article itself, the writer and the publisher. Just because a writer is giving opinion does not make it unreliable. The sources I've given you meet the standards for all three aspects - the article, the writer & the publisher. The opinion pieces aren't being cited as sources for their opinion but for that single fact which some editors here have argued should not be included. The fact doesn't change whether the NY Post or the LA Times are writing opinion pieces or straight news pieces on the subject. The publisher has decided to include that fact in the piece. There may be a valid argument for not including her name, but lack of reliable sources and verifiability are not those arguments, because those are present here. Lastly, the information I included, which you wrongly accused me of "outing" her did not in any way out her. It was relevant information that has been published in several reliable sources. Ncjon (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I removed the name, please don't rush to re-add it. The name itself doesn't really make or break the article, but there is an issue regarding privacy (even if there happens to be some sources using her name). Most articles I've seen on this subject appear to be using a variety of sources for their information; I've seen a bunch of blogs referenced, other media, forums, and to a certain extent interviews with people who claim to know something about what's happened. Actually, the only source I've seen so far claiming to have been in touch with her personally is the spokesman.com story you reference (and then only through an SMS). Unless Belle Knox herself steps out and does an interview using her real name or becomes a public figure to a greater extent than now I think we're better off leaving it out. The BLP also appear to support that position; When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. Although you can argue that her name has been widely disseminated, I think the latter part is more important in this case. As others have mentioned she tried to keep her real name from being disclosed (appearing on CNN as Belle Knox), so I believe we should respect that for now and refrain from adding it to the article.Bjelleklang - talk 18:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I did not add it, nor have I attempted to add. All I've done is point out that the claim that we don't have a reliable, verifiable source for her real name is false. As I have said repeatedly, there may be good reasons not to include her name, but claiming a lack of verifiable, reliable sources does not work. What I added was some non-identifying information that Sportfan5000 falsely accused me of "outing" her with. Ncjon (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if you thought I accused you of adding it, @Stybn: added it and I removed it[3]. Just adding my arguments to the discussion here :) Bjelleklang - talk 18:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd be perfectly happy with removing his name for the most part, but he's been in several sources such as New York Magazine and several non-tabloid and non-International papers, so it'd be harder to argue. You're welcome to open up a discussion about whether or not we should remove his name. However as far as Knox's potential real name goes, that's a closed discussion point. The consensus was that it should not be added because so far it's unconfirmed in enough high quality sources to where we could say without a doubt that it's her name, because she has requested that nobody use it, and because there is the potential for harm if it is used because there are a lot of people who honestly want her to be ruined as a person because she made what many would consider to be an irrational choice. Nothing is really added to the article by adding what is suspected- but not officially confirmed- to be her real name. See Kevin's comment above. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Put plainly, as far as WP is concerned, the majority of articles about porn stars include their stage name (but not their real name) because that is what they are known by and likely what brought them to WP. Conversely, when a real name is cited in a porn star article, its seems to be because they've crossed over into mainstream work, but this is not a standard by any means. If you review this list, Category:American female pornographic film actors, the majority of them do not list their real names. The one person that comes to mind that is an exception is Tasha Reign who's first appearance was on the TV show Laguna Beach while she was in high school and then went on to have a career in porn. But when she's been a guest speaker at her alma mater, UCLA, even they refer to her as Tasha Reign. Knox doesn't even come close to this kind of exception. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I restored most of what you removed, as the circumstances of her outing are topical, but left out the outer's name as a suggested compromise. Others here may disagree and restore his name, and if they do I don't intend to fight it. Lagrange613 22:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no significant encyclopedic value in reporting her real name against her wishes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Agreed. This is a clear case of WP:BLPNAME. Given the fact that she's chosen to use a pseudonym when speaking to the press and that she's been the recipient of threatening and bullying remarks, and that providing her real name would not really offer that much to readers, we should omit her name.GabrielF (talk) 06:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It's a bit silly that we're going to such lengths to avoid reporting her real name when reliable sources, some of which we use in the article (!) have already done so. I think we're well into Streisand effect territory right now, barring the barn door with all our might when the horses are already out. --BDD (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
    • As you said, sources "report" her real name unlike here on WP, where we do not simply "report" what's out there. To my knowledge, every interview she gave was under the condition not to use her real name. The moment she herself chooses to make her real name public we can sure do so too but until then, in light of some (or at least one?) RS, it's in our discretion not to include it. So far and to date, we should use a conservative approach to our BLP policy.TMCk (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"sanctioned leave of absence", trivial?

Knox has taken a sanctioned leave of absence from Duke University, but plans to return.Lawrence-Turner, Jody (March 12, 2014). "Duke University freshman, porn star graduated from Gonzaga Prep". The Spokesman-Review. Retrieved March 17, 2014.

First off this is trivial, and secondly we cannot infer why she had a sanctioned leave, per WP:Original research. I'm also concerned that the entire source goes to great length to reveal personal information about Knox's family, as well as her identity. I suggest leave this source, and likely other articles from The Spokesman-Review, unless they are reporting something not covered in other reliable sources, and are not being used to reveal personal information likely used to identity Knox's real name.

I see no reason her high school, family, and other material not relevant to her notability, should be included as of yet. Wait until she reveals her own name, and speaks about these issues. The article is fine without for now. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The same editor has [re-added it now, asserting "Duke leave of absence - it is not trivial - directly relevant to the issue of harassment." However the source states, in the last sentence(!), "Although Weeks has been in Los Angeles filming and taking a college-sanctioned break from classes, she plans on returning to campus “right away” and says she’ll “graduate from Duke with my class.”" So the source only mentions the leave, but no reason why, and conflating this content as notable remains WP:Original research. I think it remains trivial, and is unfortunately being used a source, that the bulk of their reporting is not included based on BLP and privacy concerns. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"Knox has taken a sanctioned leave of absence from Duke University, but plans to return.[27]" is directly supported by the source. The fact that you don't like the source using "Weeks" is not a reasonable reason for exclusion.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the content because it's trivial, I suspect it's being inserted to excuse the use of the source which is full of other content being excluded on BLP concerns. The content was re-added, stating it concerned her harassment, which the source does not support. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
It happens last week was spring break at Duke. EVERYONE had a "sanctioned break", and it explains why she expects to plans to return soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawford001 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Here is a source for what User:Crafword001 states: Duke University Academic Calendar. The source above only mentions her absence briefly and doesn't say if she was absent due to the harassment or attention she's been getting, or if it was due to something else, eg. spring break. Unless we can find a source that puts her absence into context and shows that it was related to her being revealed as a porn actress, I don't think it should be part of the article. Bjelleklang - talk 07:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This is BS, if it was just Spring Break and the source is misrepresenting that, then toss the whole thing. She (and the rest of the student body) will go on a "sanctioned break" next year and the year after around this time, SO WHAT! The timing of it is made up nonsense. We are not slaves to or victims of the sources available, just because information exists does not mean we have to use it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is not as clear as it could be on the purpose for the break, but classes resumed yesterday and Knox is clearly not on campus as she's doing HuffPost Live in New York right now Belle Knox LIVE and has a full publicity tour in the city this week, which has included appearances on Opie and Anthony, The View, Dr. Drew and includes scheduled appearances in studio on the Alan Colmes show as well as other taped appearances. Ncjon (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The article is not clear at all, that is the point. It's a trivial detail dropped in the last sentence. And her appearance on any show is most likely her video-conferencing in, which cannot be implied as to proving she is not also attending her classes. We need much stronger sourcing, to explain what, if any significance, this has. Until then it remains as silly, as reporting her favorite color, or that she doesn't have classes on Tuesdays. It's needless trivia, and that it relies on a source that is working hard to reveal private information about her, and her family, makes it more problematic. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
You make a lot of suppositions without looking at the sources I've provided, just as you did with the Spokesman-Review before. They are not video conferences, but live in-studio interviews, which proves she's not on campus. The information is not trivial, as it is directly relevant to her claims of harassment and to her fame - as a Duke student who does porn, who also is not actually on campus being a student. You seem bothered by this particular source that cites this information and I'm curious if that's the root of your concern about removing this bit of information. Ncjon (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Threats of violence

None of the proffered sources make any claims of threats, rather they report the subject says she received threats. I purposely didn't rewrite this as I suspect the claim to be true, but let's attribute this properly.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This is generally true with all threats of violence, and death threats. They are reported to the FBI, and police, not republished. Have any reliable sources disputed that threats have been made? Perhaps we could refer to them? Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
No. We rely on RS to state if such threats have occurred, not if they have been disputed.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
What do you think the source cited, "Why death threats won’t keep the ‘Duke porn star’ from doing what she needs to do to pay tuition," is referring to in the title then? Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Who knows? The article doesn't mention this, and that's what we go with, not whatever a copy editor decides to title an article. User:Collect said something germane on this subject before. Perhaps he will enlighten us.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The article states "After online bullies divulged her real name and personal details – and wished her dead – Knox published two essays in the online women’s magazine xoJane.com, revealing her face but refusing to use her real name." Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • She's written about it in her XOJane posts. ([4], [5]) Here's a smattering of the posts she says she received:
BK threats
You should slit your wrists and die, you stupid bitch
FUCK YOU!!!! IF I SEE U WALKING ON CAMPUS I WILL KICK YOU IN THE FACE!
I could have sworn that she'd put one of the death threats in the article, but the threats of assault, rape, and the wish that she would die are pretty visible. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
We have numerous reliable sources that report the threats as fact, do we have any reliable sources that dispute these findings? Numerous national media have focussed on the threats she has faced. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
We have NO RS reporting threats, at least none that are cited. We have the subject sayng this, yes. Do you not see a distinction? We need verification. Find a source or leave the tag. Next time I will bring an admin in.Two kinds of pork (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The "threats" are far less in both number and nature then I and many others have received over the years -- if this is the worst that can be shown, they are of little actual value as "threats." Collect (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
You may check out what death threats are designed to do. You may be well adjusted to getting death threats but that doesn't mean others would feel what way you do. Dismissing threats against her life seems incredibly callous, and wildly out of step with WP:BLP. Sportfan5000 (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Speaking as one who has received death threats in the past let me damn well assure you I know what they are. Your silly "assumption" that I am immune to them is not only objectionable, it is demeaning on your part to make such claims about others. Please read and abide by WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I've about had it with you. We require RS to write articles. The use of primary sources to paint a "woe is me" picture in the lead is unacceptable, in addition to the wildly POV tone you introduced. This article doesn't exist (or shouldn't) to either vilify "Knox" or garner sympathy. Your recent additions have been reverted, and it's up to you to gain consensus before re-adding them. But that is precisely what you did. I'm not going to play the revert game with you anymore. Either revert it yourself and then discuss, or when I get the time later today I'll file a edit war report.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Your dismissal is, of course, unfounded but I'll waste the time to reacquaint myself with all the reliable sources and more fully annotate the information so it is more blindingly apparent her threats were not dismissed by mainstream media as readily as you are keen to do. Replacing the statements with your preferred "citation needed" tag only supports you think Wikipedia should be in the game of questioning what reliable sources are reporting even when it's made clear we are reporting what she stated. Sportfan5000 (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The fact that you haven't even bothered to familiarize yourself with the sources BEFORE removing the "cn" tag (several times) is indicative of a cavalier attitude towards working and playing nicely with others. Try to work on that or find a new hobby. As for what I think, you apparently haven't a clue, though you should as I've said what I thought already; IMO "Knox" probably has received such threats, or else I would have removed that part entirely. The fact that I think it is probable, and therefore probably verifiable shows my good-faith at leaving content that could be verified. "Citation needed" means precisely that; it's not the boogeyman you think it is.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Interesting you can create a fact where none exists. I stated that I would reacquaint myself with sources I had already gone through, but apparently you may not have. And playing nice with others is not really an issue I think you should point out on others. Each time, i tried to address what your concern was until rewriting the entire sentence so it was clear it was Knox's statements. You removed everything by just reverting my addition as vandalism. Perhaps now you can bother to explain why you felt the sourced addition was vandalism. That will help everyone see how we can meet your expectations. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
To put it mildly, I'm sick of your POV bullshit and other games here and at other BLP articles. If you can't understand why your recent edit was seen by others as a POV attempt at victimization, then you have no business whatsoever editing any article about living people.

Juicy Terms

I've taken the liberty of combining this with the above section, as it concerns the same exact subject. (unsigned)
Um -- refactoring the comments of others is generally frowned upon -- and so I have un-refactored your edit which did not reflect the post I made. Collect (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Juicy terms can only be used of they are used by specific reliable sources and cited as such. In one case ("slut shaming") I found it as a comment to a Blog, but that does not meet WP:RS and WP:BLP requirements. I can not read The Independent as it is strongly pay-walled . Collect (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I tracked one "juicy term" down to its actual source -- an opinion column in The Guardian. Opinion columns are generally usable, at most, for opinions cited as the opinions of the person holding them, and not as "facts" or to ever support a "contentious claim." Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the actual source. Collect (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Your apology is accepted, please be more careful in the future. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

non-facts

That she is not in a database is a "non-fact" -- that is -- there are a zillion things not currently true about her, and absent a reliable source making that specific comment as a matter of some importance, we can not assert it is important that she is not in a list, a book, a movie, or anything at all. She was not in Gone With the Wind either AFAICT. Collect (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a "non-factual fact" that might be notable in that genre as pointed out in a edit summary. I'm not an expert in porn related bios but it might be as well a notable/important fact for such. Don't think there is any harm in including or omit such info. Looks to me as trivia not worth fighting over, at least for now.TMCk (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belle Knox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Belle_Knox/Archive_1&oldid=1136558568"