Talk:Streisand effect

New version of the lead section

This version has made extensive changes that are not an improvement. "The photo had 6 views, two from Striesand’s legal representation, then gained over 500 thousand views. CCRP took the photo down, but it had become widely published elsewhere on the internet. The legal action on Streisand’s behalf gained notoriety after the website Techdirt coined the term." This isn't needed in the lead, it is covered below. "The Streisand effect since then has been often and popularly attached to backfired attempts at information suppression". Poor wording, not an improvement on the previous version. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for entering discussion with many good points which may now be addressed by new edits. By sticking more essentials, the lead is now more concise.

5ive9teen (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted those changes because they removed information that was highly relevant to the topic. I moved that into a new section, making the lead even more concise. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the approach, and have further applied it, successfully, I hope

5ive9teen (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I added a very brief paragraph on Streisand account of her regretted involvement 5ive9teen (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Propagation is not idiomatic expression peculiar to English. It is the exact same word in French and other languages have extremely close variations of.

"Propagation" is primarily an English word, but it has equivalents or similar concepts in many other languages. For example:

- French: propagation

- Spanish: propagación

- German: Verbreitung

- Italian: propagazione

These terms are used to convey the idea of spreading, disseminating, or propagating something, similar to the English word "propagation." 5ive9teen (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The lead

Here is my lead which disposes of extranea (since inexplicably TMI is not to be used in edit comments, though well known and well understood as too much information)

I believe this is much more direct and appropriate. The effect is a popular phenomena. Anarchonist’s edit would have unaware of the term’s broad usage. Which is a pity since that is the only reason it has a Wiki entry. The casual reader could be excused for drawing from the lead that it is an obscure term of art for media or academia.

Named after singer actress Barbara Streisand, the Streisand Effect is a popular phenomenon of unintended consequence arising when attempts to conceal information backfires—particularly if available on the internet or in other media. It exemplifies psychological reactance: where a desire to hide information instead makes its propagation more likely.

Streisand regrets that her name is attached to the phenomenon, saying she was associated with it after her lawyer attempted to suppress an online photo of her Malibu, California residence. She only wished for her name to go unmentioned with the photo. 5ive9teen (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted it. You basically restored your wording which has already been reverted multiple times. It is not direct, it is not appropriate, nowhere the article says it's a "popular phenomenon" (apparently your own synthesis), you re-instated the idiom "backfires", and added an inconsequential note about feelings that aren't supported by the article body. None of this is acceptable.

You are edit-warring now. I advise you to propose changes here. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Apparent edit war

Unfortunate we have came to a manifest edit war after a request for cordial dialogue, made after, I believe, a 2nd revert within 24hrs, (typically when for comity’s sake discussion is encouraged) has received disregard. We now have, by mistake or by intent, from Anachronist 3 reverts within 24 hrs (usually the mark of an edit war escalation and when a request for intervention becomes a reasonable option. It has a brute force affect to me, but that’s personal, so nm). For myself, I think I’m at 2 reverts, and the second revert was attended by a courteous but seemingly ignored request for dialogue before any more reverts.

The reverts:

The 1st revert in 24 hrs to to this

The 2nd revert in 24 hrs

The 3rd revert in 24 hrs

What’s even more unfortunate is this edit war could been avoided easily if objections, now explicated for the first time, were expressed before that avoidable 3rd revert. Let’s go over those points and others as well.

Backfires is a fine word, but now that we know (I didn’t) that it is idiomatic and possibly unfamiliar to international readers as such, it can go.

Streisand did regret her lawyers actions (there was no earlier objection made to this) but it is easy to replace it with something like Streisand addressed her association with the Streisand effect saying…

The origin of the term belongs in the lead and Streisand was there, so her recollection should return to the lead. Without her instigation, no effect to edit war over. Nothing could be more essential. The same for who invented the term.

The effect is popular phenomenon (a piece of popular culture) and nothing else. Not saying so suggests it may be an obscure term of art. The international reader, as we have advised to heed and consider, may well be unaccustomed to common American idioms (but given popularity of American art products, I doubt it. But let’s not quibble over this). They should be allowed to not make such an erroneous inference.

Not sure what is the difference between remove and censor: it seems a distinction of tiny differences. Even so, rather than split hairs on that, suggest simply using suppress instead.

Extranea such as ”taken to document coastal erosion in California“ can exit the lead. Streisand would have objected for any reason the photo was taken. And that it was a clifftop residence, more appropriate for real estate copy, is also unneeded in the lead. The body is where this lead bloat belongs.

“The effect is named for American singer and actress Barbra Streisand” is classic case of poorly applied passive voice. Lets instead look at this:

Named after singer actress Barbara Streisand, the Streisand Effect is a popular phenomenon of unintended consequences followimg attempts to conceal information—particularly if available on the internet—but instead draws to it unwanted attention. It exemplifies psychological reactance: where a desire to hide information instead makes its propagation more likely.

It is hoped for the above gets helpful replies, comments and suggestions. Bear in mind that his editor would be help that WP rules and customs invoked and cited are attended by brief detailing of what is precisely at issues. Not that this is imminent, but a reply saying I’m not edit warring because read all of lengthy policy X, has often, is jailhouse lawyering level stuff that, in my experience, seemed more like filibustering and less in good faith. Perhaps we can agree to avoid that.

To collegiality and a better lead. 5ive9teen (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The previous version of the lead was reasonably OK, but this version was not an improvement. It contains poor prose, and saying that "The legal action gained notoriety" is not NPOV. The WP:LEAD is also a summary and does not need to go into details that are only a paragraph away.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

If we're going to count reverts, why doesn't 5ive9teen count his own? 5ive9teen has been reverted multiple times by other editors, not just by me. The edit summaries have been clear enough to get the message across.

Furthermore, the points 5ive9teen makes amount to synthesis and original research.

There is no need to create undue weight in the lead for the two sentences describing Streisand's rebuttal, and saying she "regrets" anything is pure WP:SYNTH if the source does not say that.

The term "popular phenomenon" is original research, and I would argue it is false and not applicable. The phenomenon has existed for generations, not just since someone applied Streisand's name to it. There is no need to give this a vague label like "popular phenomenon".

Starting out the lead with a bare assertion that has no explanatory power ("Named after singer actress") is far more awkward than the simply starting out with the term and then explaining it.

Poor prose isn't an improvement. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I prefer 5ive9teen's version - more concise and explains things better, while not getting hung up on details that are also covered in the main body. Using the word "backfire" is not a problem; it has a different meaning than unintended consequence; it is what is called a "perverse result" - but that is a much more obscure and less likely to be understood phrase. While the phenomenon has existed for generations, this article is called Streisand Effect and that is a popular phenomenon, or at least a popular expression.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The point of the lead is to summarize the main body text, and 5ive9teen's version does get hung up on a detail (the "regret") that isn't even mentioned in the body text. The the proposed lead sentence explains nothing and fails to summarize the circumstances that led to the name of this topic. 5ive9teen's version engages in synthesis and fails WP:LEAD. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Re this edit: We are now running into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problems, because there are repeated reverts by 5ive9teen despite three editors saying that they do not think that the new wording is an improvement. And as I said in the edit summary, see WP:BRD.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Baised wording

I belive that 'the Streisand effect... aquire and spread it' is baised. I have charged some wording in the 'History and etymology' section for this reason (see my edit summary for details.) However I do not know how to make this wording more neutral. Can someone help me with this? John Kryten (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I've made an attempt. I think "incidental and peripheral" is adequately neutral but gets the point across; the project was concerned with erosion, not privacy, and whose house had been shown was assumed to be of little or no importance. I also split it into two sentences because the single sentence seemed clunky and overstuffed. Carguychris (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This is still not really NPOV. Streisand states in her autobiography that only the photos of houses of celebrities such as herself had the name of the house owner attached to the photo. If true this belies "incidental" and "neutral" as being the photographer's method. Hence her statement that she wanted only her name taken off like the others, not the photo suppressed. Walton22 (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I see your point and I've taken another crack at it. Carguychris (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)