Talk:Imogen Thomas/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Imogen Thomas. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Notability
i believe this page must not be scrapped as shhe is a member of the big brother house and as weeks go by everyone will be viewing this page. Ghajini 15:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- i agree but it does need to be added to --172.188.50.217 15:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, and thanks for your input to the AfD. If you could add your thoughts to The AfD page, then it will help keep the page if you feel it should stay. -- 9cds(talk) 15:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- she's still got a fair bit of success nowadays, maybe the afd from 3 years ago when she was still in the house could be ignored... probably on the telly more than Pete. Earfetish1 (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, and thanks for your input to the AfD. If you could add your thoughts to The AfD page, then it will help keep the page if you feel it should stay. -- 9cds(talk) 15:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Super-injunction
As per "Wikipedia is not censored", Wikipedia's main servers are based in Florida and are under the jurisdiction of the Floridian and US federal courts (with their admirable First Amendment). I am not a lawyer, but I do not believe that the super-injunction which prevents reporting the identity of the footballer with whom Thomas had an affair binds Wikipedia. There is therefore no valid reason to keep the relevant information, which is obviously in the public domain judging by a cursory inspection of the web, out of this article. Same goes for all the other poisonous super-injunctions currently in force (ETK, et al.). Terminal emulator (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- We need reliable sources for the identity of people taking out super injunctions. They do not appear to exist as yet. WP:BLP also applies. As I understand it, despite the location of the WP servers, UK based editors would be breaching the terms of super injunctions if they identified the people gaining them. Philip Cross (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is no need for a UK-based editor to add the information. The whole thing can be done from beyond the reach of the courts of England and Wales, with their dismal regard for free expression. Terminal emulator (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- A fair point about reliable sources. But to oversight the edits that are adding the information seems grotesquely overzealous. --Dorsal Axe 20:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is no need for a UK-based editor to add the information. The whole thing can be done from beyond the reach of the courts of England and Wales, with their dismal regard for free expression. Terminal emulator (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have reviewed the situation because of the allegation of improper use of suppression tools. None of the edits have been suppressed/oversighted, although egregious BLP violations have been deleted. Folks, this is an encyclopedia, not a gossip sheet. Information, especially salacious or highly controversial information, being added to biographical articles must be sourced, without exception. This is Wikipedia's policy and standard, and it has nothing to do with injunctions or superinjunctions or anything happening in the courts of the United Kingdom. If people feel an overwhelming urge to spread gossip, I strongly urge them to go elsewhere, as repeated BLP violations is grounds for removal from the project. Risker (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Interested editors should see the wider discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Super-injunctions_and_unnecessary_censorship_of_Wikipedia (that will probably disappear into the archive soon enough, but it's the thread beginning 18:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC) for those who want to find it). Terminal emulator (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well her name is all over the UK papers because ofthe injunction so that should certainly be on the page. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, and it is mentioned on this page, but the issue at stake here is that it is not mentioned in the article about the person whose identity is protected by the injunction, even though that person's name can be found all over the internet and possibly in the foreign press. Given that the case is sufficiently notable that it gets a mention in the article on one party to it, one would expect it to get a mention in the article on the other party. Terminal emulator (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a reliable source for the identity of the person whose identity is protected, or is it just rumours and speculation? I thought the point of the superinjunction was that nobody would know who it was. –anemoneprojectors– 12:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- There are no reliable sources, only gossip and rumours. That is why the person is not named in the article. It has nothing to do with the superinjunction. Wikipedia isn't a supermarket tabloid. Risker (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I know it's nothing to do with the superinjunction, that's why I asked if there was a reliable source. I was asking Kittybrewster because they gave the impression they know for sure who it is, as if it's been reported in the press, instead of just rumoured or speculated by the public. –anemoneprojectors– 22:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- There must be a reliable source for the identity of the person named. The whole point is that nobody subject to English Law is willing to go on the record as being the source so we are going to have to rely on non-British contributors. Wikipedia IS the foreign press. There is no law against reading who took out the super-injuction and no law against a non-British legal entity publishing it. You're quick enough with your First Amendment when it is your rights that are being trampled on. And this is not gossip, it is a fact, nobody is denying it exists, so there is no problem with including it in an encyclopedia. I think Risker is being a bit sniffy calling this 'gossip'. 78.149.173.126 (talk) 07:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policy requires all sources to have already been published (see WP:V). Since no reputable press sources are publishing the name because of the injunction, it's not possible for Wikipedia to obtain a source that complies with our policies. January (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Risker is right. There is no RS on this, even in the foreign press. Most of the people in the current round of super-injunctions are not well known names, despite what you may have read. Foreigners are not itching to hear about the private lives of B-list tv stars and Big Brother contestants. The super-injunctions are creating a classic Streisand effect.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policy requires all sources to have already been published (see WP:V). Since no reputable press sources are publishing the name because of the injunction, it's not possible for Wikipedia to obtain a source that complies with our policies. January (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- There must be a reliable source for the identity of the person named. The whole point is that nobody subject to English Law is willing to go on the record as being the source so we are going to have to rely on non-British contributors. Wikipedia IS the foreign press. There is no law against reading who took out the super-injuction and no law against a non-British legal entity publishing it. You're quick enough with your First Amendment when it is your rights that are being trampled on. And this is not gossip, it is a fact, nobody is denying it exists, so there is no problem with including it in an encyclopedia. I think Risker is being a bit sniffy calling this 'gossip'. 78.149.173.126 (talk) 07:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- I know it's nothing to do with the superinjunction, that's why I asked if there was a reliable source. I was asking Kittybrewster because they gave the impression they know for sure who it is, as if it's been reported in the press, instead of just rumoured or speculated by the public. –anemoneprojectors– 22:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- There are no reliable sources, only gossip and rumours. That is why the person is not named in the article. It has nothing to do with the superinjunction. Wikipedia isn't a supermarket tabloid. Risker (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a reliable source for the identity of the person whose identity is protected, or is it just rumours and speculation? I thought the point of the superinjunction was that nobody would know who it was. –anemoneprojectors– 12:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, and it is mentioned on this page, but the issue at stake here is that it is not mentioned in the article about the person whose identity is protected by the injunction, even though that person's name can be found all over the internet and possibly in the foreign press. Given that the case is sufficiently notable that it gets a mention in the article on one party to it, one would expect it to get a mention in the article on the other party. Terminal emulator (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well her name is all over the UK papers because ofthe injunction so that should certainly be on the page. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Super-injunction?
Is CTB v News Group Newspapers a super-injunction? I'm fairly sure this is wrong, as its existence has been reported in UK reliable media. The Mail citation here says that it is a super-injunction, but this may also be wrong. It looks like a common or garden injunction.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- In this article, Duncan Lamont - who is a lawyer - says "Put simply, a super-injunction means the claimant cannot be identified. It was argued that if the press could say that footballer X had obtained an injunction against lap-dancer Y, people would assume that sex was involved even if it wasn't. To work - to protect the claimant and his family - it had to be anonymised (the "super" bit)." He also says that Imogen Thomas has been involved in a super-injunction, so it looks like this is right.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This column in a more specialised publication distinguishes between super-injunctions and ordinary injunctions restraining publication of private information, and describes this one as a privacy injunction. January (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- It might be worth noting wrt that article that it is slightly misleading in some points - in particular the final paragraph about the Mosley judgment - which was, in the CTB case, been used to strengthen the use of privacy injunctions, not diminish them. As to the issue of super-injunctions v normal injunctions, the distinction does not seem to be a particularly legal one, developing mainly from use by the press, rather than by courts - but in Donald v Ntuli the Court of Appeal does talk about turning the injunction into a super-injunction, but distinguishes that issue from "anonymity".
- There is also a definition of sorts of a "super injunction" in Goldsmith v BCD (although only from the High Court), which is where "information relating to these proceedings or information describing them is expressly prohibited". It seems clear from what little case material there is that, legally, a super-injunction is where there is an injunction preventing the existence of the injunction being disclosed, rather than a court order preventing the identification of a party. The Imogen Thomas case clearly does not fall into the first category as there is a public judgment showing the existence of the injunction.
- I'm no lawyer, but it seems that if we go with the "media" definition, then a single article by a lawyer isn't the best source, and so this isn't a super-injunction, and if we go with the "legal" definition, the Court of Appeal (or High Court) beats a lawyer's opinion, so it isn't a super-injunction either. --Duke (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, is it worth linking to the actual judgment in the case, as it is there? --Duke (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Added, the case has also been back in court today: [1]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- That is the judgment from today; the hearings were mid-April, which is when the first interim injunction was made, and then this judgment from today is the justification for that injunction and a continuation of it. We'll have to wait and see if this goes to a full trial. --Duke (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- All the pussy footing around this issue makes me sick. This poor woman has been receiving death threats from certain moronic soccer fans while the footballer in question quietly giggsles away at home. If wikipedia is too cowardly to stick its head above the parapet to help overthrow this rich MAN's law because of 'lack of reliable sources' or the 'we are not a gossip rag' excuse, then can we not at least include something along the lines of "a google search for 'imogen thomas + [footballer X, Y, Z]' results in a, b, c hits? This can ofcourse be properly cited and then justifiably included in this or other articles (for instance the article about the footballer who's name we all know, but can't say) without breaking any UK only laws. Admittedly, the article(s) in question would be slightly less pretty, but this would only be a temporary measure.
- Come on Wikipedia, stand up and be counted, there are greater things at stake here than WP:V, and as one of the top 10 viewed websites in the world Wikipedia could be instrumental in re-introducing a 1st amendment style freedom of speech into the UK and into Europe in general! - PS that's where this super-injunction nonsense came from in the first place, ironically European human rights laws! 1812ahill (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Sport.es
Is this link RS? Queeninbriefs (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would say no - it's clearly gossip/speculation, albeit based on facts about the betting markets. As far as I am aware, there are not yet any reliable sources specifically identifying the footballer who took out this injunction; the facts that a lot of people think they know who it is, and have been placing bets based on those assumptions, are interesting but not good enough to include in this article. Robofish (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, only a person who has read the super-injunction document first hand could violate its conditions. This Spanish article is saying that people are betting on a certain Welsh footballer, but this is just speculation. See also this BBC interview with Jimmy Wales.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- People have been talking about the sport.es story as though it is The New York Times. Here (roughly) is what it says in English: "You know that in England, people bet on almost everything, and this time they have been doing it with the name of the football player and family man who was unfaithful to his wife with Imogen Thomas, the model and ex-girlfriend of [Jermain] Defoe. X Y, the Welsh United winger, is the winner. And where there's smoke..." The story is accompanied by a photograph of Thomas showing her ample charms. None of this goes beyond standard gossip column stuff, so it cannot be used as a source.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Another Source is sina.com.hk (in Chinese - use Google translate if you need), (see Sina.com) they flat out confirm the name. VERTott 02:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- The Chinese source (translated here) is no further forward from the sport.es source. There is a need to avoid gossip and feedback loops, and saying that social media sites (Twitter, Facebook etc) named the player is simply recycling the existing speculation that fails WP:BLP.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
eBay auction
Thomas is selling her clothes from the time of the injunction on eBay.[3] Four days to go on the dresses, shoes and bra.[4]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Date of birth
Please can the edit warring over the date of birth stop. This needs a reliable source whatever it is. All of the current dates are uncited.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Some sourcing: on her Twitter account for 29 November 2010, Imogen Thomas says "Havin a fab birthday". The Daily Mail in December 2011 refers to her 29th birthday. This suggests that the birth date in the article of 29 November 1982 is correct, but it would be helpful to have a source saying this directly.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Imogen Thomas mentions the recent round of vandalism and edit warring on her Twitter account here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Notability?
Why is this trivial, gossipy, self-publicising entry here at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alien-corn (talk • contribs) 20:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- IMHO, the article is beyond stub class and has enough material to meet WP:GNG. The article was nominated for deletion in May 2006, but that was some time ago.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Although it fulfills the relevant requirements, the article fails to acknowledge the fundamental fact that hardly anyone has been remotely interested in Imogen Thomas for quite some time. I suspect she wrote most of it... Poglad (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Height
The article says "she was rejected by many modelling agencies due to her height", but does not give any figures. It should at last say if modeling agencies consider her too tall or too short to be a model. -- 212.88.19.240 (talk) 10:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)