Talk:Désirée Cousteau

Today's edit

Cousteau is by any definition a public figure: One of the most famous actresses of the Golden Age of Porn, a Hall of Famer, and notable enough to have her own Wikipedia article. A public newspaper article is not in any way, shape or form a primary source. And her real name is absolutely pertinent information in a biographical article about anyone. I invite the other editor to discuss as per WP:BRD.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. We routinely reject edits that add the real names of porn stars because they are not reliably sourced (as we would with any other potentially contentious edit that wasn't reliably sourced). This is not a routine case. The edit is reliably sourced and the name should stay in the article.--ukexpat (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No one could object to an article about her pseudonymous adult career. There is no question subject is well known enough to have an eponymous Nom de Porn article, but that does most certainly not make her a public figure, because she is not generally well known. See WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." Also see Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention.

The disputed edit was not drawing on a newspaper article about Desireé Cousteau as such in the adult entertainment industry; had nothing to do with her notabilty. It is not so far from being primary source; court records are primary and source drew on local news court report to provide a detail of a BLP subject. It's news that uses court records and has a detail she can not be presumed to consent to appearing here. If there was an article about her that she collaborated on, such as an interview, and that detail was mentioned then there might be an argument to use the detail. (although her profile has altered so much in the decades since that it would not be open and shut unless she'd spoken recently). Anyway, as it stands there is not a proper source or rationale for that particular detail being on the page. Moreover, we cannot assume there is no objection on subject's part to this detail being in article; quite the opposite.Overagainst (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the content that Overagainst previously challenged on BLP grounds as I see a discussion regarding its suitability has been started but not concluded. If there's no new consensus to re-insert the material after a challenge, then it stays out until a discussion is finished and a new consensus is formed per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Also, it doesn't matter whether the subject is known to be alive per WP:BDP. As someone less than 115 years old, we assume she's alive for the purposes of BLP, unless we can confirm otherwise.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

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.

---

Result: The source in question is reliable, but the real name of the subject should not be mentioned in the article.

3 editors supported inclusion of the name and 6 opposed it. One support was made because "If she didn't want people finding out what her real name is she probably shouldn't have been doing porno films", which is not a policy-based argument. One oppose was based solely on WP:BLPNAME, which cannot be applied to this case because the subject cannot be considered to be "discussed primarily in terms of a single event" within her own biography. I consider these two votes to be invalid.

Only three editors (or four including a "per suchabody" vote) directly addressed the question put by the RfC as to the reliability of the source used. One editor said it was not reliable, based on a charaterisation of the source as "sketchy" and a suggestion that, particularly given the BLP context, the possibility of error should not be ruled out. It was counter-argued that the source was, far from being sketchy, a report by AP in a reputable local newspaper ("reputable local" in this phrase is not an oxymoron). The counter-argument here is stronger. The source clearly meets the basic criteria set out at WP:RS and can't be discounted merely on a basis of "you can never be too careful".

That might be the end of the matter but, given that there is a clear BLP issue involved, the secondary question implicit in the RfC question - whether the real name of the subject should be mentioned in the article - should also be addressed. How much legitimate interest in the information is there, balanced against the right to privacy of the subject? It is argued that the subject is "a Hall of Famer, and notable enough to have her own Wikipedia article", so there is plenty of interest in knowing her real name. Is having a very short article on Wikipedia really being advanced as evidence of her repute? Seriously? Her real name has only been mentioned once in a reliable source, a third of a century ago in a local newspaper which, in a not very different parallel universe would never have had reason to mention it. Are we not in "right to be forgotten" territory here? It seems a number of editors are thinking in this direction, including a number of editors who did not cast a vote. I don't see that I have much of a choice other than to go with the numerical majority outlined in the first sentence of this close.

A note: Someone went through and liberally redacted content from the RfC. Please consider setting yourself a higher threshold for BLP redactions in future. This made the close harder and may have led editors to vote in the RfC without all relevant information before them. In this case, the information had been in the article for five years. I don't think an extra month on the talkpage was much to get your knickers in a twist about.

The real name of the actress, who uses a stage name, is cited by a newspaper article. Is this an acceptable citation? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Yes: Cousteau is by any definition a public figure: One of the most famous actresses of the Golden Age of Porn, a Hall of Famer, and notable enough to have her own Wikipedia article. It is recentism to claim she is not widely known. Second, a public newspaper article is not in any way, shape or form a primary source; pretending it does not exist is whitewashing and censorship. An article subject's real name is absolutely pertinent information in a biographical article about anyone.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• Note: Because it impacts on the admin who will eventually close this RfC, the cite has been extant and stable since at least November 2009. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• What is the encyclopedic value of including the name? Has the article subject expressed any view with regard to its being publicized? Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the question. What's the encyclopedic value of knowing a basic biographical detail of a performer who uses a stage name? Don't all encyclopedias have that for, say, Sting, Elvis Costello, Evan Hunter, niche performers like the rapper Future, and fellow adult-film stars of the era like Harry Reems and Annette Haven? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Mention in a rather obscure section of a newspaper in a relatively tiny town in Florida in no way means that a name cited in that newspaper is the subject's "real name". Cousteau went by several names, and unless there is a reliable source that gives her birth name beyond any doubt, then the name in the Lakeland paper should be treated as just one of several aliases. Some of the other aliases have been listed in this article in the past. I suggest that those aliases be returned to the infobox and the [redacted] name be listed with them, but not in the lead, since there is no reliable source that states beyond doubt that [redacted] is the subject's "real name". – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 08:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: "Real" is subjective, since a subject's birth name, maiden name, married name, etc. are equally real. The only quantifiable criterion is that this was her legal name according to police records that the journalist viewed as part of the public record. I'm not sure the size of the town or of the newspaper has any relevance — arrest records are legal public documents across the United States. --Tenebrae (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: One editor in pre-RfC discussions has claimed the arrest had nothing to do with her career as an adult-film star. This assertion is false: She was arrested at an adult theater while promoting one of her films as part of her professional career responsibilities. -- --Tenebrae (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't challenge that the source is reliable; I don't challenge that [REDACTED] had to do with the subject's career. I do challenge the view that a newspaper article is considered [REDACTED]. It is merely a newspaper article, and it is an assumption on your part that the journalist in Lakeland, Florida did enough digging into an event that happened [redacted] to suggest beyond doubt that [redacted] is the subject's birth name, maiden name or any other name apart from just one more of the subject's aliases. So in my view, the article in the Lakeland newspaper is a reliable source solely for the occurrence of the event, but in no way even remotely suggests that "[redacted]" is anything more than one of the subject's many names by which she went. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 09:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misunderstood; thank you for clarifying. Any out-of-town, i.e. national, content in a local newspaper without out-of-town bureaus comes from a wire service; this page of the paper has news reports from Connecticut, Virginia, Mississippi and elsewhere. Wire services, most prominently the Associated Press, report [REDACTED]. That's where they get it. They don't make it up  :)

In any event, nothing here says "birth name" or anything like that. It says "other name." Unless one is suggesting she lied [REDACTED] — an act that would have severe legal consequences, particularly for someone who in 1981 was a star in her field who merited this national news coverage — we have to accept this was her legal name at the time. I've never heard any editor here or, for that matter, elsewhere automatically assume a subject is lying [REDACTED].

That said, I used "real" colloquially in the RfC statement, rather than go into legalese detail. I was trying to keep the statement as simple and neutral as possible. I can make the statement much more specific if that's clearer and if no one objects. --Tenebrae (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

In just a short span of time I have found websites that assured me that her birth name was (redacted), and others that said her birth name was {redacted). None of the websites are anything more than vague about what happened to her after her porn career, to include what different name she went by (if any) after she married (if she did marry). I was unable to find any source that this project would deem reliable that shed any light on her name. Even the spelling of her stage alias in questionable. The diacritical mark is used in some places and not used in others. Some sources show two marks instead of just one. I can only conclude that to treat (redacted) or any other name she went by as anything more than an alias is unwarranted. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 10:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

You may conclude that, but unless you're a professional journalist it's an inexpert conclusion: Comparing blogs and anonymous fan sites with professional journalism is comparing apples and oranges. One cannot compare a wire-service report based on public-information police records with random Internet claims. Additionally, you're suggesting she lied to police. That's an unwarranted and fringe assumption.

As to the diacritical marks, adult-film producers and their graphics people of the time were more lackadaisical than Hollywood studios or network television. In her 160 or so movies, it's quite possible some give the diacritical marks and some do not. I'm not sure what your point is — it's simple enough to give both versions in the text if supporting material warrants it. That said, many US newspapers and magazines eschew diacritical marks, so Beyoncé is often published as Beyonce. That doesn't seem to be an issue at her article. --Tenebrae (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, this is a separate discussion from the RfC issue, which is solely about the use of the cited source, and distracts from that question. You seem to have no objection to footnoting the name. May we move this tangential content to a separate section below? --Tenebrae (talk) 10:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I would disagree with that move, in that I have already stated that I support the reliable source where it would be used as a citation for [REDACTED] in the article. Where I do not support it is when it is used as a so-called reliable source for establishing her "real" name as [redacted]. That has everything to do with this Rfc. And since this is a subject who is still alive, this issue should probably be resolved more quickly than the usual Rfc resolution time. In short, the newspaper article may be used to support the fact that the subject of this article [REDACTED]. It should not be used as a source for citation of the name [redacted] other than it was one of the names by which the subject went. I do not suggest that she "lied" [REDACTED] as you expressly imply. I only suggest that she may have used an alias to protect her privacy. Celebrities have been known to do that, and we have absolutely no way of knowing that [redacted] is anything more than another of her many aliases. As for the notion of the reliability of newspaper articles, I suggest you read Yellow journalism. That is not an indictment of any particular journalist or newspaper in this discussion. What it does suggest is that it is impossible to tell if everything we read in a newspaper is entirely straightforward. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 11:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• It's not, no. Of course it's not, in this particular situation. Here's a couple things to think about here.

1. It's an extremely sketchy ref for any fact. The Lakeland Ledger is not the New York Times. How confident can we be that the reporter (not even named) or a fact-checker went into the public record database and even checked this fact before publishing it? I'm not at all confident. "Compiled from Ledger wire services" it says. Which ones? Who knows? Look at the immediately preceding articles: "Priests to exorcise demons from 12-year-old boy"; "Newlyweds may trade jail cell". The whole vibe is sensationalistic. If someone at the Lakeland Ledger actually drilled down and got proof of this assertion I'd be surprised. Maybe AP or UPI would have, but maybe the "Ledger wire services" includes Bob's Wire Service or the editor's cousin who lives in Fort Wayne or whatever since they don't say. Sketchy.
2. And in fact maybe the Ledger did get it wrong, maybe. It says [redacte] that her real name is something else altogether. Not sure who's right. Probably the website. But even if it it's 50-50, do we really want to be publishing material where our level of confidence is "maybe it's true, maybe not".
3. And it's not just any fact. It's a contentious fact (porn actress's real name) and an very extremely contentious ref considering the incident being described. There is no planet on which this ref is allowable in this BLP, period. The incident described (if it even occurred -- who knows?) has nothing do with the the person's career and wouldn't belong even if it were uncontentious, simply on the basis of being trivial But it's very highly contentious since it's potentially embarassing. Egregious gossip and must go. The fact that the ref is being used to cite only her name rather than the whole incident matters, but is not decisive: we do not want that bad and egregiously defamatory and gossipy ref attached to this BLP at all, period. Herostratus (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

First, under common law and certainly American law, it's not defamation if it's true. No court in the land would accept a case saying a journalist, academic or encyclopedia reporting a [REDACTED] is defaming anyone. Neither are public-information [REDACTED] records "gossip." These are examples of what I mean when I say we're all entitled to our opinions, but there are personal opinions and there are knowledgable professional opinions.

To suggest the WP:RS newspaper or wire service is lying or mistaken because you don't like something is quite remarkable — and in any case, Wikipedia's standard is RS verification.

By the way, The Ledger was owned by The New York Times Company for decades, including in 1981. Suggesting it uses "Bob's Wire Service" is disingenuous at best and ignorant of the newspaper industry at worst.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to expand on point #3 a bit, I would not want to ref the fact "Senator Smith was born in Armonk, NY" to a piece titled "Smith Accused of Killing, Eating Kittens" (assuming that the kitten thing was not something we thought worth describing in the article). That would be a little sneaky, would it not? See what I'm saying? Herostratus (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The actress was arrested in the direct process of promoting her film. I'm not sure it's a fair comparison with killing kittens, --Tenebrae (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I would also not want to ref the fact "Senator Smith was born in Armonk, NY" to a piece titled "Smith Accused of [REDACTED]" (assuming that [REDACTED] was not something we thought worth describing in the article), OK? If you want to make the case that [REDACTED] is worth describing in the article, that'd be different. You couldn't make that case without losing out of hand -- it's a BLP, and it's defamatory, and it's pretty trivial and gossipy, and it's a single not-that-good ref. Since you can't use the ref for what the ref is a mainly about, I can't see using it for anything. I would say that just having a cite of an piece titled "[REDACTED]" is defamatory all by itself. It's just a defamatory as "[REDACTED]". We don't have an its-ok-if-its-a-porn-actor exception to WP:BLP. It's not like we could never use an article with such a title, but only if it's absolutely necessary to have a fully encyclopedic article. (The case that "the true name, if obtainable, is necessary to a fully encyclopedic article" is a fair point though. Not one that convinces me, but still a a fair point.) Herostratus (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

If a U.S. senator were arrested, that absolutely belongs in a Wikipedia article. And again, the more accurate analogy with an actress arrested while promoting her adult film would be if the senator were arrested in relation to his own promotional duties, such as at a fundraiser or a campaign rally. False analogies intended to appeal to emotion do not contribute to an honest and forthright discussion. And in any case, the article does not even mention an arrest. The citation is just to cite her name.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:ALIVE "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. [...]: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment".

30 years after quitting the adult business she is not the kind of public figure that kind of detail could be revealed about. If the information had been published in reliable sources, and she herself had disseminated it through such sources recently, it might be different. In this case there is no source whatever whereby she can be assumed to consent to the name being used. There is clearly the possibility of harm. Another point is that it is indeed a " bad and egregiously defamatory and gossipy ref" Overagainst (talk)

Not quite sure how saying [REDACTED] related to one's porn career is harmful in the context of a porn career, in which one appears naked and has hardcore sex onscreen. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Erm, a little to close to "she's a porn whore, so she's forfeited her rights to be treated with respect". WP:BLP doesn't make that distinction. Other ways to look at it are: 1) She's a sex worker, a perfectly legitimate profession deserving of respect; or 2) she's an actress, a perfectly legitimate profession deserving of respect; or 3) she's probably a victim who got bamboozled or shanghaied into the whole thing, and so give her a break. Herostratus (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Looks OK The Ledger appears to be a credible newspaper. The reporter likely got her real name from [REDACTED], who [REDACTED]. So, yes, it's a good source. Darx9url (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

You use terms like "appears to be" and "likely". Sorry, but these are not terms conducive to accept this information as "reliable" in conjunction with WP standards. Moreover, it is not uncommon for celebs to give [REDACTED] false names to protect their privacy. So I would still have to disagree that the info is reliable. What about the source newspaper in the city and state [REDACTED]? What about other papers that also subscribe to wire services? Can these claims not be backed up by other sources? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I would also have to agree that the relevance of the incident to the subject's career is minimal at best. Moreover, "recentism" has been mentioned and that essay should be restudied. There is no argument that the subject of this article is and has been a celebrated public figure; however, the person who portrayed the role that is described in this article left the "business" many years ago and can no longer be considered a "public figure" in any way. We have no way of knowing [REDACTED], is as relevant as I am notable. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Darx9url, [REDACTED], but that may not have been the actual person who was thus billed in movies.

The people involved in making the films did not give info such as their real names out even to each other in many cases. BLP applies to talk pages we are should not mention rumours. Reems himself participated in recent publicity about his porno career. Cousteau hasn't. Anyway, she must be assumed to be alive and the info is dubious, not about any noteable aspect of the onscreen career that the article is about, and has clear potential to harm her.Overagainst (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The newspaper, which certainly used a wire-service story, says she was arrested in an adult theater while doing promotion for one of her films. Suggesting that the theater hired an impersonator for someone whose face was very well-known to adult-film viewers is rather a remarkable claim--Tenebrae (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

RE: WP:ALIVE: As Paine says, we don't know if she's alive or not. Second, is Paine saying that once a famous person fades from view we go back and erase any mention of [REDACTED] or anything else they might not like?

As for nitpicking over the common phrasing "appears to be": Yes, The Ledger of Lakeland, Fla., is a credible newspaper. Someone above says snarkily It's not The New York Times but it was owned by The New York Times Company in 1981 when it ran this clearly wire-service report. (Also, regarding being lectured on yellow journalism, I've been a journalist for more than 35 years. If someone thinks The Ledger is yellow journalism, one misunderstands the term.)

And I'm not sure how an actress being arrested while in the direct process of promoting her film is something with "minimal" relevance to her career. Paine previously said, "I don't challenge that the source is reliable; I don't challenge that the arrest had to do with the subject's career." So, and I could be wrong, but this about-face seems like a desire to be argumentative for its own sake.

I said I'd be happy to replace "real" with something like "her legal name as given to police officers under penalty of law for giving false information as reported as national news by credible professional journalists." --Tenebrae (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Herostratus and his link to the http://desireecousteau.com/: See the next section. This may be a fan site, and it says itself it doesn't know what's true about various biographical points. Once more, under WP:RS, you can't compare professional journalism with "something somebody said on the Internet." --Tenebrae (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not comparing them. It's not usable as a source in an article. But they say her name is Deborah Clearbranch. They must have some reason for saying that. Maybe they're just wrong. Maybe they're lying for some reason. Or maybe they just flat-out made it up from scratch. Why would they do that that though. There's reasonable cause there to cast doubt on what her real name actually is. Til we get to the bottom of this I'd want to be real careful here. Herostratus (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Tenebrae, are you saying BLP does not apply to the article?Overagainst (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course BLP applies, but not your personal interpretation of it. The news item from a reliable source relates directly to her career and gives an obviously pertinent biographical fact. She is a public figure whose films remain available, and indeed is an industry hall-of-famer, so if she's alive, it's not a privacy issue. And if it were a privacy issue, any conceivable harm of [REDACTED] 33 years ago is inconsequential given that she, as an adult making a choice repeatedy over the course of some years, willingly appeared naked and had hardcore sex onscreen for public consumption. And more power to her — she's a legend from the era of porno chic. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:PORNO [1] "Even when reliably sourced, editorial judgment must be exercised before deciding to add a pornographic actor's birth name to an article which uses their stage name. Please review WP:BLPNAME as it relates to names that have been intentionally concealed because of a subject's occupation. "It is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context."

Clear possibility of harm to a living person, and omitting it is not going to result in any real loss of context. You are in a minority now I think.Overagainst (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that this standard 30-day RfC is one day old, that's irrelevant, and also questionable that it's so: I believe, so far, all of two are in favor and all of two or three not.

We don't know the subject's occupation. We don't even know if she's alive. As for editorial judgment, I've been a journalist for more than 35 years. I'm quite aware of using editorial judgment. I do it virtually every day for a living. Unless one does, one is substituting personal judgment for professional judgment. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

And, please, let's be forthright and not disingenuous. Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography is no policy or even guideline. It's just an essay by project-members. It says right there: "This page and its subpages contain their suggestions." We are under no obligation whatsoever to follow suggestions that may hurt Wikipedia's mission by censoring or whitewashing publicly available, reliably reported information. I know the European Court just decided this is OK, but I like to think the Wikipedia Foundation considers itself American, with American values of intellectual freedom. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Info drawing on time machine data mining combined with the Google use of Wikipedia means a simple web search of the "real" name will bring up images of porn from 30 years ago. Going to the limit of what is technically and legally possible to gratify the natural curiosity that we all have hardly demonstrates the application of values. By my way of thinking applying a value involves resisting such temptation for a higher purpose, such as the Wikipedia mission of writing thoroughly encyclopedic articles in the context of the subject. Writing with a view to a living person's right to privacy is consistent with an encyclopedic article. WikiProject Pornography have presumably gave the matter, which must have come up regularly, some thought. And they think serious consideration should be given to omitting "real" names from articles such as this. -Overagainst (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

No one went to any "technical limit" or did anything other than an ordinary Google search, and this is a live cite, not archived in Wayback. And I think virtually no Wikipedia editor would accept your argument that if a cite is archived or if old images appear then it's unusable. It's a moot point anyway: This is a plain Google hit available to anyone.

It might also be considered paternalistic that anyone chooses to speak for a grown woman (if alive) who would be perfectly capable of contacting Wikipedia — the fifth most-used website in the world, I believe, and of which the average person has heard — regarding information they may not like. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. The Ledger news story is a reliable source, and appears to be from the Associated Press. [URL REDACTED] here is an alternative version of the same story (from the Spartanburg Herald-Journal) with the same story and the AP credit. I would find [REDACTED] to be relevant to her professional career, given that it happened while she was in the course of publicizing a film. I do agree with Paine Ellsworth in one respect, however: the wording of the AP story doesn't definitively support a conclusion that [redacted] was her birth name. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

That is a concise summary with which I agree. Tenebrae, I have performed no flip-flops for you. If you would kindly go back and read what I wrote again, you would find that I agree that the Lakeland paper is a reliable source for the event, however it is not an acceptable source for [redacted] as the birth name, only for [redacted] as one of several aliases used by Cousteau. Therefore, the paper should be used only to source the event, which is not in the article, and/or the alias, which should not be given undue weight by saying or even implying that it is her "birth" name, her "real" name nor her "legal" name. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 01:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

PS. Kudos for the Spartan(burg) work! Are you a journalist of 35 years, too? PS by – Paine

Paine and I, who have a respectful relationship, discussed his jest on his talk page. The two of us are good. And as I've said from the start, he and I agree we can't say "birth name," and in fact, I'm the editor who changed that, months and months ago, to "other name." That's neutral phrasing.

I would just note that any suggestions it is not her "legal" name is an unwarranted accusation that she may have lied to police or falsified her driver's license/other standard ID. That's an assumption of criminality that no responsible responsible journalist or, I believe, any editor here could reasonably make. Just because someone is an adult-film star, they are not more prone to criminal behavior off-camera than any other person, and we shouldn't suggest they are. The Associated Press gives this as her name: That's very much enough of a reliable source to meet the standard of WP:VERIFY under WP:BLP.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Refs, People, contentious statements about living person's need to be ref'd anywhere on Wikipedia, not just article pages, so let's try to do that when needed. Herostratus (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC) (redacted)

Making edits to the page (and Talk) with a view to possibilty of harm to a living person and their right to privacy is policy. I have cited policy page Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, the lede says "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) 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; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". The most relevant section of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons page WP:BLPNAME says "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. 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. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories".

My reading of the above is that the onus is on those who want to use the "real" name to supply an interpretation of how the policy applies in this case to justify using the detail. This issue in relation to an adult performer has obviously come up a few times before for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography and while the following is indeed merely guidance, it is worth noting that the use of real names is not considered to add any meaningful context by the editors who have thought about the issue more than anyone else. Real names of performers "Even when reliably sourced, editorial judgment must be exercised before deciding to add a pornographic actor's birth name to an article which uses their stage name. Please review WP:BLPNAME as it relates to names that have been intentionally concealed because of a subject's occupation."Overagainst (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

With all respect of Overagainst, who is editing with good will and constructive intent, there is nothing titillating or sensationalistic about the dry, objective fact of [REDACTED]. To use a deliberately extreme example, for absolute clarity, there is nothing titillating or sensationalistic about the dry, objective fact of [REDACTED]. One may disagree with including the name, but let's please not claim there is anything "sensationalist" or "titillating" about this. I would have serious concerns about any editor here who is "titillated" by this in any way, shape or form.

Secondly, and aside from the concern that a person's name is a basic biographical fact and thus meaningful, this nationally circulated Associated Press cite has been in place for over four year. If there were a risk of harm, the subject or her representatives have had over four years to email Wikipedia and ask for its removal based on such-and-such grounds. I think it's presumptuous of us to behave as if a grown adult can't decide something for herself. And it's POV prudery to automatically assume there's something "wrong" with being an adult-film star — particularly when they appear at conventions, sign autographs and write memoirs. Are we going to go to Seka and scrub her non-stage name — which has appeared in The Wall Street Journal (where I first saw it years ago) or, as cited, the Ocala Star-Banner and not an academic journal, an unreasonably high bar that Overagainst suggests? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

There isn't a clear cut case for removal of a purported real name if the performer sought publicity while using it, as some have. However, if a former porn performer's stage name is the title of the article about her adult career, which ended 30 years ago, and there is a not a reliable source for her ever having revealed her real name publicly, (when speaking to a reporter in an interview for example) then BLP policy surely applies ("Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) 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; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment"). The WP porn project guidance advises against using a real name Real names of performers and refers back to BLP policy WP:BLPNAME "as it relates to names that have been intentionally concealed because of a subject's occupation." It is pretty clear that Cousteau had always intentionally concealed her real name. And so I consider it quite easy to see how BLP policy applies.Overagainst (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Omit the name. This is not a public figure, and if the source given is the only one for the real name, then it is not widely known and we have no business making it widely known. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not accurate to say she's not a public figure. Perhaps some editors are too young to remember her, but her films are still widely available, she's a hall-of-famer in her industry, and she was a major star of her time. Just because you or I personally might never have heard of the rapper Future, to take one of countless examples, doesn't mean he's not a public figure.

Marion Morrison is not the widely known name for a certain movie star, and it was never one he used publicly or wanted known. Does that mean it's not a pertinent biographical fact at John Wayne?

I believe Overagainst makes assumptions when he claims she intentionally concealed it. Given the paucity of pre-Internet-dated publications on the Internet, especially of niche print publications, his claim can't be made as an incontrovertible fact.

And since Overagainst did not respond to my challenge of his false claim of "sensationalism" or "tabloid-ness," I would ask him to do the courtesy of reading this reiteration:

There is nothing titillating or sensationalistic about the dry, objective fact of [REDACTED]. To use a deliberately extreme example, for absolute clarity, there is nothing titillating or sensationalistic about [REDACTED]. One may disagree with including the name, but let's please not claim there is anything "sensationalist" or "titillating" about this. I would have serious concerns about any editor here who is "titillated" by this in any way, shape or form.

--Tenebrae (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Even if John Wayne was currently an example of a BLP, his article has multiple scholarly works that indicate the importance and existence of his non-stage names. 2. If it's in question, we do make an assumption that the BLP would prefer privacy 3. BLP articles require multiple sources reporting independently of each other to corroborate any material, whether it's positive or negative, for celebrities and non-celebrities. This is true even setting aside all other BLP concerns. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

edit header

Forgive me, but your suggestion that you may take it to ANI if the name is removed must be trumped by my suggestion that if the name is returned to the article, then this will be taken to the BLP noticeboard. Status quo rules do not apply to BLP articles. If something has been done wrong for four days or four years, that does not mean it should not be righted. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That's going around the point. It is your and some others' OPINION the passage in question should not b there. I — a responsible editor for many years — and some others on this page disagree with that OPINION. You hold your opinion very strongly, and for you to simply declare that YOUR opinion is correct preempts this RrC. I've contacted an admin. Please let the ADMIN make the call. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Over time, I have made several minor edits to the article without even caring what names were listed. It was only with the start of this discussion that I saw that other editors (at least two at first) consider the usage of the other name to be a contentious BLP violation. I'm just here to support that opinion. If you are so experienced (and I know you are nearly twice as experienced as I am) that makes it so much more difficult to understand why you would fly slap! against policy??? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 18:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

As for "going around the point", please respond that you will comply with policy and let the material stay out of the article for now. This discussion will probably be held up until you do this. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 19:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

As the use of the supposed "real" name and the ref for it is out of the article while it's under discussion as a BLP violation, why is it being linked to on the talk page as a prominent reflist? The issue is not the ref or source for the info, it's the BLP case against Wikipedia revealing that info. Is there a reliable source for her having made her real name public, in an interview for example?Overagainst (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed If the reflist is returned, this will have to be reported to the BLP noticeboard – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Desireé Cousteau. Thank you. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

See above. Policy is to keep the status quo. This is no egregious claim: It's a pertinent, factual Associated Press statement. Putting an exclamation-point image does not make your claim anything but your OPINION. My and others opinion is not only is this not harmful, it is an absolutely standard, non-controversial statement that a major news agency reported nationally based on [REDACTED]. It is incredible to me that simply because some POV censors have an issue with adult-film stars and think somehow they should be ashamed of themselves is paternalistic and presumptuous. The only fair thing is to leave it out of either of our hands and let an admin decide about this passage in the interim. I've asked one to do so. Please don't substitute your POV for an admin's judgment; whichever way and admin does it, we both need to accept. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This isn't opinion, this is policy per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. This was already explained after you re-added the material. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." In practice, this means that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached. "Do no harm" is not "Keep the material in the article while discussing".__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It is opinion that an Associated Press report of an arrest that occurred during one's professional duties is somehow questionable or not BLP-compliant. If an AP report of an arrest that occurred during one's professional duties is not BLP-compliant, we'll have to change half of Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It is this RfC's place to discuss opinions, yours and mine. It not our place to go against policy while we are doing it. Contentious material should be removed while this discussion is ongoing. THAT is policy. You may be subject to negative actions if you persist in going against policy. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 18:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I tend to think that per WP:BLPCRIME, a minor misdemeanor arrest barely registers, is not of significant relevance to her life and, notably, would overwhelm the article with undue weight, given how brief the biography is. If all we know about her is "she acted in some porn films," then the fact that she was arrested (not convicted, apparently) for a minor misdemeanor is not encyclopedic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• No Not important. NE Ent 02:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Her name isn't important? It's a basic biographical detail. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, her legal names (maiden name – née – married name(s) when RS supports them) are important; however, if any particular legal name is not reliably sourced to show beyond doubt that it is actually, factually and truly her legal name, then Wikipedia can't use it per project BLP policy. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Some may be almost certain that it is her "legal" name; others may not be so certain. Even if it is her legal name, it cannot yet be determined from the newspaper article whether the name used is Desireé Cousteau's maiden name or married name. That kind of uncertainty tells me that the other name should not be used. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the other name adds any context that would override the BLP policy's presumption of privacy for someone who is not generally well known, and who has always intentionally concealed having worked in an occupation in which pseudonymity is normal. ..Overagainst (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Just so it is clear, this RfC is about:

• The real name of the actress, who uses a stage name, is cited by a newspaper article. Is this an acceptable citation? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

This RfC is only about the usage in the article of the other name ("real" being subjective) and about usage of the newspaper source to support usage of the other name. Since her arrest was not mentioned in the article, the newspaper source is not being used nor is it being asked to be used as support for the claim that the subject was arrested. The sole purpose for the usage of the newspaper source is to support usage of the other name in the article. So what this RfC is asked to resolve is whether or not the other name should be used in this article and supported by the newspaper source. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Paine. He's correct, and his clarification helps prevent us from spinning off into tangents. That said, I can see how an editor just coming onto this massive RfC could easily get a misimpression of simple issue. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Yes Use her real name. [redacted] If she didn't want people finding out what her real name is she probably shouldn't have been doing porno films [redacted]. Lovely Blue Flowers (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I would say the pseudonymity of an adult performer is quite different to stage names of mainstream actors because a former (or active) adult performer who has intentionally concealed their identity, might suffer real harm through identifying details being used on a Wikipedia article on their adult career. The paucity of sources demonstrates that the subject in this case is a person whose notability derives entirely from her adult career. In view of BLP policy on considering the possibility of harm, and giving details of people who are not generally well known, I can't see a case for inclusion. Almost any name will turn up living people of the right age. Obviously people on the net think they can know who is who and ascertain current details of the sought individual, well they can't. In the case of the other name from thirty years ago (of a woman in a business where some women had fake ID and relationships were often peripatetic) it's quite likely to have altered more than once, so we would probably be giving the current real name of someone with no connection to Cousteau and causing harm to a living person that way.Overagainst (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

If her "real" name were sourced well, that wouldn't be a problem. You say, "Use her real name." Fine. Show us what her "real" name is – or was. Is the name in the newspaper article her birth/nee/maiden name? is it her married name? or is it just one of many aliases she used to protect her privacy? You want to use her real name, but you really have no reliable source to support the claim that the name in the newspaper article actually is her real name. If you think it's her real name, then by all means PROVE IT! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Would it help if I posted a copy of her credit report showing you all her names and when they were used? I work at a financial instutution so its easy enough to get. Would that help you guys decide the issue once and for all? Lovely Blue Flowers (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

A credit report sounds like a very fine and reliable source; a credit report is also a private and, hopefully, secure document. If you work for any financial institution and have access to such private and secure material, and if you were to post this private material, and if I were your boss, take a wild guess what would happen to you if I found out that you had publicized such a private and secure document? And please don't try to play the "Sunshine law" card, because this is an individual who has been very private for more than thirty years; such law does not apply. So "no" is the best answer to your question. This project cannot open itself to the lawsuit this could bring, and neither should you. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 07:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't see how that could possibly be what we could call a source or be allowed on any Wikipedia main or Talk page in any cicumstances. It certainly would be an invasion of WP:BLPPRIVACY for any BLP and probably defamation, even if we could could somehow verify that it was the correct person. Even assuming we know a name Cousteau used in everyday life over thirty years ago, which I am not at all satisfied anyone has, it probably wouldn't be the same person today; it is easy to be misled on the internet and conflate identies because you can usually turn up multiple real living people of a certain age who share a name. The net is full of sites that use searches to pretend they have what people are looking for. Enough searches for someone of a certain name and occupation can create the false online appearance that there is such a person following such an occupation in such a place. And as has been pointed out even women leading regular lifestyles often change names thorough marriage, divorce and remarriage over 30 years.

I had a discussion at BLP noticeboard a while back about this issue (of using an adult performer's real name in their article) and I was told the presumption of privacy applies unless an adult performer had intentionally made their real name public knowledge, and there are multiple reliable sources for that. Well she didn't intentionally make any name she went by in everyday life public knowledge. It is clear cut that she that she (or someone who would rightly or wrongly be pegged as her) could suffer harm. According to policy, the only name appropriate on the article or here is the pseudonym used for the adult industry career that is the subject of her page.Overagainst (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

As I've said, there's the real world of professional journalism and research and then there's Wikipedia. I've seen this type of discussion before, where professors and authors who are expert in their fields run afoul of amateur historians who really have no idea of how professional research works. There's not a journalistic or academic among the scores I work with and know who would distrust the Associated Press to do its basic job of simple arrest reportage, which is no more difficult than not tripping over one's one feet.

I've seen the way these discussion usually go, and it's not worth my fighting further, since I do know whatever Wikipedia does, it can't erase a publicly available AP story out on the web. What's public is public. And not all the crazy tangents, especially those ones involving bestiality and those that absurdly claimed a cited AP source for a simple name involved titillation, changes that. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Wikipedia can whitewash a biographical fact, but it's still out there in newspapers for anyone who may ever have use of it when writing on the cultural topic of pornography. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It may sound odd, but I am actually sorry you feel that way, Tenebrae. Please don't adjudge the entire Wikipedia project based upon some experiences that did not go the way you had hoped. After only five years of experience (registered, with several more years as an IP editor) with Wikipedia, I've already been through several discussions that did not go the way I had hoped, and several more that did. Other encyclopedias do not have the advantages of Wikipedia (the encyclopedia) as they are only as good as the intelligence of their few professional editors. Because of its input from millions of editors who live in many countries and come from all walks of life, this encyclopedia promotes and incorporates the wisdom of "the people". While this does mean that there are some weaknesses in the project, it also means there are great strengths that are unavailable to other reference resources.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is no reliable source known that definitively gives the "real" name of this retired adult-film classic star. To pick a name off of a random news story about something else entirely, a name that is only implied to be another name that is not her "stage name", a name that may or may not be her birth name, her married name, or even just an alias to protect her privacy and true identity, and then to try to pass that name off as most certainly her "legal name", is just not something that this project should risk. Why, why, why should Wikipedia (the project) risk a lawsuit when it can stick tight to its BLP policy and simply not use the name??? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't feel sorry for me — feel sorry for all cultural historians who may be stymied, however briefly, by amateurs who censor what any responsible journalist would call a reliable source: a standard, everyday Associated Press report of a misdemeanor arrest. To say that's not a reliable source shows ignorance of not one but two professions, journalism and law enforcement. The name police took down is name she verifiably used; the police did not make it up.

As for the extreme and alarmist claim of Wikipedia risking a lawsuit: That's grasping at straws. The AP certainly wasn't sued over this everyday, plain-vanilla police-blotter report; if so, that virtually unheard-of occurrence would have been national news. In the U.S., truth is the summary defense against libel claims, and the AP was reporting the truth as defined by U.S law. Additionally, not only was Wikipedia not sued over the four-and-a-half years this name appeared in the article, but the article subject never raised any objection in all that time, despite it being extremely easy to do so. Trying to whitewash an impeccably reported fact about a public figure — to attempt to censor reliable national reporting of a public record — demeans the mission of this encyclopedia. This reliable, pertinent information is out there, easily found via Google with no extraordinary means. Trying to censor it for the straw-man reasons I've been reading is unprofessional, and it's also misguided paternalism: The subject, if alive, is a grownup who can well decide for herself if she wants to ask Wikipedia to remove something. -- Tenebrae (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• [redacted] as an alias of Cousteau, though doesn't indicate if either is a birth name; [redacted] as an alias, but again does not indicate if either name is her birth name. While I am seeing a common belief that she was born in such a year in such a place and with such a name, I am not seeing anything reliable, and no consistency between possible birth names. Given the vagueness of the situation, lack of reliable sources, and especially that it is possible to mistakenly confuse real people with Cousteau (I have just seen on more than one info site that people are making a connection between Cousteau and a [redacted]), it would be more appropriate to not use any possible birth names. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• No keep this name out of it, per Herostratus and SilkTork. We don't know whether the name published by this paper is her actual real name or something made up. The most we can say is that "such-and-such a paper reported that her name was name" but I'm not convinced that even this is appropriate. -Ca2james (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the context of her notability. At end of day, and as discussed in detail above, the BLP policy is to avoid possible harm. The only source permissible for a name or other detail that could be used in the article (or mentioned here) would be her herself, and she never intentionally revealed anything.Overagainst (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I thought that if we attributed the name to the source it would be OK but I see that for BLP articles that's not enough to avoid doing harm. I've struck out that part of my comment, above. --Ca2james (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• No. WP:BLPNAME is clear. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. I'm horrified—but not surprised—that people on this talk page are suggesting that a pornographic actress "deserves" to have her real name exposed because well, she appeared in porn—as if Wikipedia is in the doxxing business and the whole need for BLP considerations are non-existent. Respect for basic human decency as well as WP:BLPNAME apply to pornography actresses too. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:39, 26 June 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.

Fan site? Commercial site?

There is a NSFW website called DesireeCousteau.com, but closer investigation shows this is a commercial site run by something called alternately the Desiree Cousteau Official Fan Club and (scroll down) the Desiree Cousteau Online Movie Fan Club. It might or might not be owned by her. --Tenebrae (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not an acceptable source.Overagainst (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Re contentious allegations without a ref

You can't make them. Not in an article, and not here. The first sentence of WP:BLP is "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." (Emphasis in the original).

Think of it like this. Without a ref (and maybe there is no such ref) would it be OK, on a talk page, to write "My understanding is that Senator Klaghorn was convicted of molesting farm animals, we should get some refs and include this in the article"? Of course not. You can't do that. Right? Everybody with me so far?

If you have a ref, there's no problem. "Here's a good ref that says Senator Klaghorn was convicted of molesting farm animals, should we include this material?" is reasonable. If you don't have a decent ref, you shouldn't be raising the issue.

Of course, this makes it a little harder to talk about some stuff. Oh well. It is what it is. We'll live. We can be reasonable about this. We can allow a little play and not be as strict as we would on an article page. We don't need to be pedantic. At the same time we're not 4chan here. Let's thread the needle and be both reasonably efficient in our discussions as well as prudent and decent.

Now, some people, regarding Ms Cousteu, have raised certain issues at the above thread (Talk:Desireé Cousteau#Request for comment) and, you know, you need a ref to make those statements. There is a ref for those issues, and I put it in, but it's been removed a couple times, maybe on the grounds of the ref itself being prurient and defamatory, or maybe some other reason; fine, maybe that's correct, I don't want to fight about that. I do know that without the ref we can't include the allegations, so I've redacted the descriptions of the issues from Talk:Desireé Cousteau#Request for comment on the basis of "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion.

I made my best guess about what needed and did not need to be redacted. It's in the history, oversight possibly not being required here. If I redacted something that didn't need a ref, then we can talk about that.

I recognize that this might be a head-spinner for some people who might have gotten the impression that talk pages are exempt from WP:BLP but... they're not, and my hope is that becomes more generally understood. We can argue about that here but I hope we don't edit-war over it there, things are confused enough already. Herostratus (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The material is not contentious. That's my point. What is contentious about a factual claim of an arrest? It only would be contentious if there were genuine evidence it never happened. That is what contentious means. But this is like talking about climate change with a right-winger.

And examples making an analogy between some misdemeanor and molesting farm animals is beyond the pale. Fox News does this so often it's ridiculous — compare the most innocuous things with bestiality. It's irresponsible emotionalism. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

There was no such analogy. Mooting an extreme case is an accepted method of exposing the fallacy an argument contains. Your argument (for the source) has nothing to do with the actual case (what you want to add). The material you want to have in the article from the source is not what you are calling a 'factual claim': that incident was never mentioned at all. What was was a detail that would lead to a living person being identified as Cousteau (rightly or wrongly). That is contentious, because you contend it can not possibly harm a living person to be so identified, and others disagree. So in line with BLP policy we don't link to or repeat the detail on Talk while deciding if it is a BLP violation. ..Overagainst (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you inasmuch as the name is concerned; however, so far as the arrest itself, that is not a contentious item because it could easily be sourced if it were claimed, either here or in the article, and if any editor were to challenge the claim. The arrest is merely a trivial detail which need not be mentioned in the article. It would be wrong to belabor this point above in the RfC, because then it would look as if you are intentionally trying to cloud the main issue of the RfC, which is only about usage of the other name, not about the arrest. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It's really simple. If the information is genuinely significant and correct, there will be multiple sources. If there's only one source, then we should forget it. If every pseudonymous individual can be outed on the basis of a single mention anywhere, then we have a real problem. Let's not do that. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not that simple, because you're assuming all knowledge is on the Internet. Just because content from before the Internet age is not online doesn't mean you can assume multiple sources don't exist. And when a "single mention" is a nationally distributed Associated Press story, vetted by layers of editors, that's not exactly the Huffington Post. Presuming all sources are equal is a fallacy. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Adds nothing at all to the context and not relevant to her notability.But the main point is there is no source for her intentionally revealing her name for public consumption. As mentioned above in detail and with long quotes of the the BLP policy, and specific guidance on this issue of an intentionally concealed real name of an adult performer, the policy and guidance all indicate leaving it out. So in doggedly claiming that you have determined that a source for the real name is reliable (and maybe it is though I think internal evidence in it casts doubt on that) you're completely missing the point. Good source or not, we can't mention the detail.Overagainst (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Meta RfC?

Do we seriously need to have an RfC about this RfC, over whether it's appropriate or even allowed to change the RfC question/header to stack the deck one way or the other, or sabotage a question one doesn't like? First, admins don't need to be told how to do their jobs. Second, you can make whatever point you want to make as part of the discussion itself. Changing the RfC question/header in order to try to skew the result in your favor is unconscionable. If you can't make a valid point as part of the discussion and need to resort to such tactics, what does that say about the validity of your point? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Censorship inherent in quashing the actress's name, or Please drop pretensions to being an encyclopaedia

One is reminded of the utterance of Jack Nicholson's character' in a A Few Good Men. This entry is no longer worth anything, let alone "very little". The idea that a decision would be made by six "editors" versus three.... Absurdity! Please drop the pretensions.William (The Bill) Blackstone (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, since you've engaged in censorship, your lack of cleaning up the article is yet another level of absurdity. Why do you have her as a LIVING PERSON? Why is she listed as someone BORN IN THE 1950s? Why are there references on this page to the state of Georgia? Since you've decided to engage in MiniTru activities, open the memory hole all the way.William (The Bill) Blackstone (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Pulling the punch

If an article on Wikipedia willfully refuses to use a subject's birth name, what is the point of listing a site, either as a reference or an external link, to a web page that includes the exact information that the article is quashing? Even the IAFD lists her real name (though not noted as such), and the IMDb specifically notes not only her birth name, but a year and place of that birth. In fewer words, if you're linking to it, there's no reason not to include it, and if the linking is in violation of a Wikipedia policy, then I question the inclusion of the links. Absurdist1968 (talk) 05:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• If I were you I would not focus too much on this birth name story which is a detail and rather fight to get a richer and longer article. It is a shame that such a major actress has only a stub as bio. The talk page is 10 times longer than the article. What a pity. Hektor (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

Sangdeboeuf makes several goods points plus a couple that a ludicrous.

(1) "unreliable source(s), e.g. mom & pop book publisher"

The source alluded to is the autobiography of a (once) prominent porn performer, at least partly ghost-written but published under her name, with her approval. If you think Seka is an unreliable witness, you have to explain why; the size of the publishing company is totally irrelevant. A citation from another autobiographical source released by a small publisher has been left in, suggesting that the editor is making up rules as they go along (not at all unusual on Wikipedia).

(2) "publication in scholarly journals or works by recognized experts should be given greater weight than brief appearance of names in news stories"

This is thoroughly disingenuous. There is no scholarly literature on the events in question, or on countless other human events. This has never stopped Wikipedia covering them. The "brief appearance of names in news stories" is doublespeak: Cousteau was the central subject of the news items cited, and Wikipedia generally treats mainstream media outlets — including AP — as legitimate and reliable sources, absent evidence to the contrary. Half the encyclopaedia will need to be deleted if this is no longer the case.

In both cases, bogus pettifogging about sources is used to avoid explaining why content is being excluded. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)