Talk:Liskula Cohen

Removed material

I have removed certain material from this article pursuant to our policy on biographies of living persons. The material was, at least arguably, sourced sufficiently, but it tended primarily to give unnecessary and unwarranted publicity to the mistreatment and bullying of a not-highly-notable individual. See generally, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Basic human dignity; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. This material should not be restored unless there is a strong consensus to do so, and my preference would be that the issue not be pursued. (I have considered deleting the article in its entirety, but am not familiar with the relevant notability standards that would relate to this individual.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that if the word "smash" and the 'stitch count' were extracted, then the extra material would be dispassionate enough to satisfy even the strictest BLP interpretors. Therefore some reworking of this passage may be required. However the bit describing the lawsuit seems very straight forward and unemotive to me, and I can't see the problem. Furthermore, on her notability, I think that as she is a model whose work has appeared on the cover of [1], and inside of what are the major magazines of the business, this is sufficiently satisfied.--Kiwipat (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments here. I'm a lawyer myself and I understand that the litigation may itself attain a level of notability at some point, but at the moment it has not. The fact is that this individual was apparently defamed by a series of highly offensive and gratuitous blog postings—another nasty instance of misuse of the limitless resource that is the "information superhighway" to damage people.

Whatever harm and distress have been caused to the subject outside Wikipedia are bad enough. But the net result of our having an article on the matter, with links to the publicity about the lawsuit, is that the defamatory and offensive comments about the subject of the article will garner substantial further publicity—an outcome that bothers me tremendously, and which directly implicates the concerns mentioned in the policy and the arbitration decision I have cited above.

We also must always also bear in mind that a Wikipedia article about an individual will almost invariably become the very first search-engine hit when a search is conducted on that person's name. And a Wikipedia article is meant to be forever, as opposed to tabloid publicity, which hopefully can have a short half-life and disappear in a reasonably short time. (Although, I fear that that is no longer true either; no one will ever again escape a youthful indiscretion that makes the full-text-searchable newspaper, and anyone's life can now be turned upside-down by an enemy or a stranger with a keyboard at a moment's notice. All of live in the goldfish bowl now, and for all time; it is not always a pleasant place to be.)

My conclusion was that the material in question should be removed, but I would welcome further input here. Although, I hope this will not become one of those situation where the discussion about whether the material should stay or go draws greater attention to it than the original article itself ever did. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm with NYB on this, particularly as I arrived at the page via the process he describes.82.44.88.178 (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur also, not necessarily per BLP, but as a matter of editorial judgment. Such information may have its place in a lengthy GA-level biography article, but in a stub, it gives completely undue weight to unpleasant but ultimately not very important events; and distorts the overall tone of her biography.  Sandstein  23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible notability of case in computing

Claburn, Thomas (2009-01-07). "Model's Lawsuit Against Google Prompts Malware Bloom". InformationWeek. United Business Media. The Liskula Cohen defamation case has translated into a marketing opportunity that is now preying on social networking manipulation. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

But that's more on people searching for the name of the blog. I think that's a stretch. If the blog itself were notable, maybe it's worth mentioning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Lawsuit

Didn't see the earlier discussion but it looks related more to the nightclub story. I think the Google lawsuit is notable enough now that it should be included. It's moving beyond the less reliable papers and becoming a little more serious, and I hope my version is neutral enough, but always welcome outside opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What if the blogger is not identifiable (ie no real name given?)

I would suspect that since Drudge has now run this story, it qualifies as notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. But my main question is this: Whoever is (or who ever created or posts to) the blog "Skanks In NYC" on blogger.com could very well have created that blog or identity without giving Google their real name (in fact, why would anyone want to give their real name when creating any sort of e-mail or blogging account?). I guess eventually, people will realize this and court orders to reveal the identity or authorship of these postings will be meaningless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.83.122 (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because you and I are smart enough to not use our real name doesn't mean that everyone is. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

{editsemiprotected} Liskula Cohen birthdate 1972 ?

{editsemiprotected}

According to this recent canada.com article Liskula Cohen is 37, making her birthdate 1972 (most probably), and not 1982.

http://www.canada.com/news/Canadian+model+wins+suit+against+Google/1909987/story.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince david of canada (talk • contribs) 02:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

She is actually born on February 3, 1972 in Ontario —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tscargo (talk • contribs) 06:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Undone my edit. A couple of the papers were claiming current age as 27 e.g. [2] Martin451 (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Representation

{editsemiprotected}I am no longer represented by Major Models, I am represented by MC2 in Miami, LA Models in LA, Heffner Models in Seattle and Spot6 Management in Toronto Ontario. And thanks for not using one of those horrible pictures. Sincerely Liskula Cohen

{editsemiprotected} And of course still with Bryan Bantry in NYC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.2.147 (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's not that I don't believe you as you would know, but do you have any type of source to verify that information? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

well you could go to

www.bryanbantry.com or http://www.modelwire.com/webCS/portfolios/LinkedPortfolioView.aspx?tpl=2x1STbtn&pflID=70923557-8871-4fe2-b8f1-4e0b079cbce7

or any of the agency web sites I listed..

and yes I am 37 years old.

And just so all of you know out there in web land... The blogger did not use her real name, she had a yahoo account with a fake name, but EVERYTHING is traceable on the internet...proxies or not, alias's or not... When will we all just except that...

I wonder if all of the blogger's realize how much money they are feeding into the hands of blog hosting sites when they write these blogs? And if they did, would they not want their cut? I mean they are writing little nothings and web giants are laughing all the way to the bank. I am sure that soon enough this fad of blogging will die off. People will eventually see that putting nonsense out there is basically pointless, and mildly pathetic. I would understand if I had done something horrible to the blogger, but I hadn't. And never will.

I am not trying to change any laws, I simply wanted to know who this person was, to make sure it was not the man that attacked me in 2007. The blog was done the same month he was released from prison.

Lawsuits

It should probably be noted that Liskula Cohen did not follow through (at least I don't think she did) with her defamation suit against Rosemary Port. Also, it would be nice if this article reported more on the results of the related lawsuits. Xaq2892 (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Liskula Cohen

Cyberbot II has detected links on Liskula Cohen which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.examiner.com/x-11955-Business-of-Being-Famous-Examiner~y2009m8d21-Rosemary-Port-revealed-as-Skanks-of-NY-blogger-Liskula-Cohen-drops-suit-and-what-is-skank

  Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)