Talk:Lukas Ridgeston/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

"piercing blue eyes that are almost wolf-like"? Is that a reference to his real eyes or his eyes after heavy photoshopping? --Fallout boy 10:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably his real eyes, or can you photoshop videos? —Angr 10:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Birth Name

Found his birth name "••••••••" at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0725898/bio and don't know how to edit it to the page.:Cheers Rickey :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.190.18.181 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Restored comment deleted by another editor, but left mention of actual name deleted until this discussion is resolved. Skeezix1000 20:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing unsourced birth name; we have been asked specifically not to list his. jamesbeat —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesbeat (talk • contribs).

In what way, and by whom, have we been asked not to list this person's name? Is there a reliable source for this name? If there is a reliable source, what reason do we have for suppressing it? What would the "malicious intent" be for including his real name? Cleduc 20:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The performer himself, invoking his right to privacy, and the company he still works for have specifically required this. It was already removed several times, thus insisting on inserting it again can only come from deliberate intention to harm. Hierosme 08:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, neither the subject of the article, nor the company for which he works, dictate Wikipedia content. If the information is verifiable, there may be a valid justification for inclusion in the article.

I would also kindly ask, Hierosme, that you review the WP:Assume good faith guideline. Simply because another editor has an opinion that differs from yours does not mean that they are deliberately intending to cause harm, or that they are "clearly malicious" as you indicated in your edit summary.

Personally, I do not take any position as to whether the actor's real name should be included or excluded from the article. If a decision is made, however, it should be based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not on allegations or claims as to what may or may not have been requested by the subject of the article. We should also keep WP:Consensus in mind. I would suggest that the policy at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons may be relevant to this discussion, and in particular, I note the section on Presumption in favor of privacy. I also note that this discussion once arose at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography/Archive 1#Real names. I hope that helps. Thanks. Skeezix1000 20:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What "valid justification" can there be that goes against the main party's clearly and repeatedly expressed wish and desire? Do you want to have him say so once more? What will you invoke against this? "The public's right to know"? This is tabloid journalism, and nothing else. Hierosme 21:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(Please indent your posts to separate comments by different editors as per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines)

All questions of justification or personal wishes aside, if the person's real name does not come from a public record or other unquestionably reliable source, it cannot be used anywhere on Wikipedia—in the article, on talk pages, user pages, in edit summaries, etc.. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: (emphasis from the original)

We must get the article right. (See: Jimmy Wales. Keynote speech, Wikimania, August 2006.) Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. (see: Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006 and May 19, 2006)

As is stated, while all information on Wikipedia is to be based on reliable sources, this is particularly true of information regarding living people. As there was a time when nearly anyone could submit information to be listed on IMDb, it should not be considered a reliable source for contentious information. Please find a better source before restoring the name to the article.—Chidom ^talk  23:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The actor may wish for his name to remain private, as may his company (although their request weakens any argument that the name might be wrong). However, he does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy given his (ahem) rather public career, in which he engaged by his own choice. Nor do I agree that being identified as gay, or as a porn actor, is harmful (and therefore, not "malicious"). If a reliable source (such as a request of the Custodian of Records for one the films) states his name, then it is appropriate to include it in the article. Just as Jon Stewart and Larry King have the actors' real names, so should this article. Cleduc 03:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If a request is made of the Custodian of Records, that constitutes original research; that information is (to my knowledge) not published but is available only by request. Which Wikipedia doesn't allow.

While you may disagree with the perception that being identified as gay or a porn actor is harmfull or malicious, you are in the minority. Also, the policy says nothing about something being "malicious"; but anything "contentious" must be "impeccably sourced".

I'm not arguing here about Ridgeston's right to privacy or right to keep his legal name to himself, although I disagree with you regarding his expectations in that regard. I have no issue with the name being disclosed as long as it is properly sourced. IMBd isn't a proper source for contentious material. As for using IMBd for dates and places of birth, I haven't found either of those statistics to be contentious.

As for expectation, Ridgeston had every right to expect that his real name would not be disclosed unless requested by a government agency. That's one of the reasons porn stars use pseudonyms to begin with—to maintain their privacy. If the name becomes a matter of public record, as is the case with Mark Dalton, then all such expectations become unrealistic.

The bottom line (and I feel like I'm starting to swing a 2x4 here) is that the information must be publicly available because it has been published by a reliable source. In the meantime, it can't be used.—Chidom ^talk  04:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I concede on the "CoR" method. I think your argument on the quality of data in IMDB is weak (with a similar argument I could say that the New York Times is not a reliable source; no source is "impeccable") and somewhat irrelevant, as, by logic, the actor and the studio having invoked privacy and not inaccuracy have already confirmed that the name is correct.

In regards to "malicious" I was answering an accusation by Hierosme above. I am quite comfortable to being in the minority, which doesn't mean I'm wrong – but by checking history you'll note that I'm looking for consensus before acting (and not making threats). Cleduc 14:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

My problem with IMBd is that at one point anyone could send them information and they did not verify the source. I don't know whether that is still the practice, I think they've gotten better. As I don't know whether the information about Ridgeston was added before or after any improvements they may have made, I would err on the side of caution and refrain from citing it as a source. (I have also been told that Ridgeston is trying to get the IMDb to remove his name as well; I have no idea how successful he may be in that regard.) The New York Times is just a tad bit different in terms of reliable information. <grin> I share your opinion that the name is correct, unfortunately, my opinion falls under the definition of original research as well.

As I have said on my talk page, my use of the 2x4 phrase was not meant to be threatening or directed at anyone, least of all you; it was inappropriate and I apologize. I wasn't even frustrated with you in particular. I've been involved in lengthy discussions at the Articles for deletion nomination for the List of male performers in gay porn films; I'm just tired of typing, I think! (Or maybe I'm tired of thinking?) Any road, have good days.—Chidom ^talk  16:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Let it be said for the record that I believe Lukas Ridgeston's career in gay porn is certainly something to be proud of (it is still going on, behind the camera). But then, I have never performed in a gay porn film nor do I live in Slovakia. Therefore, I do not feel entitled to make disclosures regarding other people's private lives to further some political point or make some general statement. Analogies with talk show hosts (or even Hollywood performers) seem to me very unconvincing to say the least, and I would go so far as to call them disingenuous. What is said about the IMBd's lack of verification in the past and the fact that both the performer and his studio are trying to have that entry cancelled is entirely correct. This information has never been made publicly available by legitimate means. But it seems it is extremely difficult to cancel something from the IMDb once entered (no matter whether it is accurate or not). Hierosme 16:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) I readily concede that the New York Times somehow retains more credibility than IMDB. I'm willing to be outvoted on that. Done. Over. Consensus is against me. This article stands as-is without the actor's actual name based on the discussion above. However, there were other arguments raised that I would like to refute. The problem remains that WP:BLP does not set policy on pseudonyms. It does set policy on birthdates. It also states that "Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy." But it does not have any policy on anonymity. Is a person's name private information? Can Mark Dalton make a privacy claim under this policy? Then how about Jeff Gannon? For that reason I would like to see a consistent policy on anonymity. Granting a blanket right to anonymity to "sexuals", porn actors, Slovakians (or any combination thereof) is impossible to apply fairly. Perhaps this is better discussed at WP Talk:BLP. Cleduc 17:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been a frequent topic of discussion on the BLP talk page; the finer details should probably be worked out there instead of gazillions of individual discussions. The section on birthdays leaves some "wiggle room"; we might want to change it to just the year (at the risk of starting this discussion from scratch). Since one of the reasons for omitting birthdays is the risk of identity theft, and I would think that would be difficult in this case, I'm not opposed to it remaining as is unless and until Ridgeston complains (which is covered in WP:BLP, by the way).

There is also a section in the policy Presumption in favor of privacy; it is controversial (read the talk page to see examples), but is is policy. The policy also brings up a very important point to consider: Does disclosing the information substantially contribute to establishing the notability of the person? If not, err on the side of privacy.

The policy is quite clear regarding the sources for information: information should never be sourced solely from primary sources (police/court records, marriage certificates, etc.). The information should be published by a reliable third-party source whenever possible, but second-party sources are allowed as well. (See Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.) A primary source may be used in conjunction with a second- or third-party source for clarification, but never alone.

As to Dalton and Gannon, both were the subject of fairly extensive media coverage that disclosed their legal names. Their privacy claims would be in vain at this point. However, I'm of the opinion—according to my reading of the policies—that those legal names don't belong in the articles here unless they are pertinent to the information contained in the article. Since both articles do discuss the legal issues involved and the coverage by the press, to my mind they pass that test, but others might disagree.

I've suggested that the "birthname" parameter be removed from the {{Male adult bio}} template; that would hopefully have editors pause and consider whether the name was relevant or not.

Yes, this will be nearly impossible to apply consistently, as it generally requires a judgment call. I don't know if there is a solution to that issue, but it probably should be taken up (or revisited) at the talk page at BLP.

'Nuff said. (By me, at any rate.) Have good days.—Chidom ^talk  18:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I did a search for his birth name on Google, and in addition to results for the various Wikipedia and mirrors of, I also got:

1. A gay video review
2. The Polish website <gay.pl>
3. A page (presumably in the Slovak language) that lists the name in question under the heading "Rok 1975"
4. Another page, also not in English, titled "TUNINGKLUB Slovensko"

I'll let you boys figure out what to make of this. Donnabella 21:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Birth Name

Is now widely disseminated on major publications such as [[1]]. John celona (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[birth name deleted]/ridgeston

Please note I have restored the actor's real name with a very well sourced link. The actor's or studios alleged and unsourced dislike of this fact does NOT allow censorship of an actor's real name. John celona (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleting info

Please note I have deleted the name again. The actor's or studios dislike of publishing real names does allow to be respected. This has nothing to do with censorship but with ethics. Learning from the Johan Paulik case publishing real names of actor's in the adult business is helping stalkers. The link was very well in existence when the discussion about the name started and it was not used. You might think about that. (Jamesbeat (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC))

I think the Paulik case is dispositive. Do No Harm. Paulik proves that putting porn stars birth names out there turns WP into a stalkers best friend. The locked page deletes the name. I've deleted it here on the talk page too. David in DC (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to have an opinion on this, but this doesn't help us weigh the advantages and disadvantages of including the name. The actor's real name is still in the locked version of the article. It seems that reliable sources have revealed the actor's name. Neither Jamesbeat nor David in DC have cited any particular Wikipedia policy to support their position. EdJohnston (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This debate (about including real names) must surely have occurred for other porn actors. Can anyone summarize what has been done in other articles? EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, John puts em in, and folks like Jamesbeat, me, and CalendarWatcher take them out. None of us will edit war, so John then re-edits the name in and there it stands.David in DC (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a precedent for removing real names from porn star pages. I have been told by a contributor of the German WP where we had the same discussion last year that Brandy Alexandre had her real name successfully removed from her WP article. So apparently there is a policy for respecting privacy and anonymity of actors in the porn industry. This policy should apply to all people in this category. And it has nothing to do with censorship as John tries to accuse us of. (Jamesbeat (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

"seems to be", "I have been told by" "apparently". Not exactly concrete. If any actor's (porn or otherwise) name is "widely disseminated" it is included in the article. The real name of Lukas is more than "widely" disseminated by many legitimate sources as a Google search will show. If you want to censor the name take it to the BLP board. John celona (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

How can it be concrete when it is not any more to be found on the page? But my source knew that the name had been there and that it has been deleted. And it doesn't matter if the name is "widely" disseminated or not. What you get on Google searching for the connection (not the name!) is a list of 15 not quite legitimate porn star listing sites and blogs all repeating the same unsourced information. They list even two sources where the name is not appearing. Legitimate I would call something else. Anyway. What matters is the common agreement reached here in this discussion and not your ill intention in this and the Tim Hamilton case. BTW linking to a porn page as you repeatedly do on the Tim Hamilton page is as far as I know illegal and violating US laws. That's also why I deleted the source and therefore the unsourced name. (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

First you deleted the name because it was "unsourced". when I put the source up you say it is "illegal". are you a student of Joseph Heller? John celona (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Where's the discussions relating to Johan Paulik and Tim Hamilton? I was looking, but can't seem to find anything. Were they outside of Wikipedia? If so, might someone provide links to the relevant articles? It would surely help in this discussion to see the details of what happened with others. Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

For Johan Paulik I can provide the link to my talk page of the German WP. I was asked about the reason for deleting the name and after having explained it like I did it in the Lukas Ridgeston case I was told that although they have no real policy about such cases it would be respected and I was given as reference Brandy Alexandre for the English WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesbeat (talk • contribs) 20:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Brandy Alexandre page is the model. Please look at the code. If you hit "edit this page", the first thing you see at the top is code from Jimmy Wales asking that her birth name not be revealed. Need a better authority than that? David in DC (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you incapable of ever telling the truth? What the code states is a request to TEMPORARILY refrain from putting the name while a discussion is pending regarding the source. John celona (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's kinda incivil. I provided a link and asked readers to judge for themselves. Five days ago. Does it tell you anything that no one else has been moved to "all caps" outrage in the intervening 5 days? David in DC (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was still on. So what? With the consensus reached it's final. Period. But apart from the "temporarily part" there is one more thing that Jimmy Wales stated: "Assume Good Faith is absolutely necessary in a case like this". I wish I could see some of it in you and your actions, dear John. (Jamesbeat (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

Really this all boils down to interpretations of WP:BLP. I think its safe to say that it is John's least favorite of Wikipedia's policies. It's rather broad and intentionally non-specific. Amongst the editors who discussed this at the BLP noticeboard, the consensus did appear to be that the names shouldn't be included. Thus far the only argument for including them is that it is possible to find them though the sources are dodgy. AniMate 23:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)