Talk:Star Wars kid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Internet culture WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Internet related culture. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

An appropriate infobox needs to be added to this article, or the current infobox needs to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

This article is part of WikiProject Star Wars, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. To participate, you can improve this article or visit the project page for more information.

Star Wars Portal

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 Mar 2005. The result was to keep. An archived record of this vote can be found here.

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 July 2005. The result was to keep. An archived record of this vote can be found here.

Contents 1 And the kids problem was what? 2 Full name legalities 3 Argument to Rename Article 4 Irrelevant 5 Image 6 What was the result of the legal preceedings? 7 Is he all right? 8 Links to the videos 9 The Truth? 10 Quebec law 11 Latest news 12 Cyber bullying? 13 notability policy for memes proposed 14 Funniest Wikipedia page ever 15 EVERYONE READ: the person in question was NOT doing a Star Wars Imitation 16 How many defendants? 17 Colbert 18 What is Trois-Rivières? 19 Requested move 19.1 Survey 19.2 Discussion 20 Original research

[edit] And the kids problem was what?

He gets money, an iPod, and world wide recognition. He should be greatful! It was his fault he left the tape behind. If he was really concerned about his fat ass he should have taken the tape. Jesus Christ, why could he take it like the Numa Numa kid?

-G

A) The Numa Numa guy (gary) posted the video himself.
B) The Numa Numa guy also isn't happy with the publicity.
C) What the hell is the point of this article?

Do we really need another page dedicated to releasing all of this kid's personal information? Seriously guys, this has nothing to do with free speach; it's a fat kid waving around a broom. Although, mind you, a couple grand and an iPod would definitely make ME feel a whole lot better.

• ) "The Numa Numa guy (gary) posted the video himself" ... that's the point, dude. The Star Wars kid did not intend for it to be put on the web. Only the people who put the tape on the web are to blame. So an iPod would make you feel better? So what if you had found the kid's tape - would you have put it on the web? If he had left his credit card behind would it be OK for other kids to empty his bank account? Magic Pickle 00:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Full name legalities

Is it legal to give the names of underaged kids who are being sued?

I am not a lawyer, nor does Wikipedia give legal advice. However, as this is a civil matter (and not a criminal matter) I believe that the names are public record. →Raul654 16:36, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

I read that his parents requested his last name to be kept confidential in future reproductions. Therefore, I think it would be wise if we deleted the "Raza" part of his name and renamed the article simply "Ghyslain"; not in the fear that Wiki'll be sued otherwise, just out of courtesy to the poor kid. Kakashi-sensei 03:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Uhhh, no. They can request all they want, but he's already been very prominently featured in a USA today story, as well as being mentioned in many, many places on the web. Our mission is to inform, and their request is contray to that mission. →Raul654 03:38, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Those don't count because they were written before his parents requested his name not be reproduced. You'll notice that [1] and [2] no longer display his last name. Kakashi-sensei 04:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

You miss the point - his parents want to keep people in ignorance, and our job is countering ignorance. Their request fundementally goes against our mission. →Raul654 04:14, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

The request by Ghyslain's parents has absolutely nothing to do with "keeping people in ignorance." They're asking to keep his last name confidential because the kid went to a mental institution over the incident. If he were your son or if you were the kid himself, you'd feel the same way. This isn't about "going against our mission." This is about protecting an individual's legal and ethical right to privacy and confidentiality. Kakashi-sensei 18:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

As recently as March 3 2005, Montreal's La Presse newspaper reprinted a New York Times article (translated into French) that mentions Ghyslain Raza by name [3]. His name is public, it was widely reported back in 2003 in local Quebec media [4] and international media. To the best of my knowledge, there is no court order in effect in Canada to keep his name secret, and it's a couple of years too late for that by now anyway. In any case his parents have filed a civil suit in any case, I don't think there's any anonymity granted in civil suits (as opposed to criminal cases), no? -- Curps 00:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Argument to Rename Article

Alright, I concede. I've given up on this argument (I never had much of an argument anyway, did I?) in favor of a small suggestion. While this may sound like a covert plan to get my way on the last issue, I assure you it's not. My suggestion is perhaps that the article be named "Star Wars Kid," since most people who are familiar with the incident would know Ghyslain better by this name. The article would, of course, still contain Ghyslain's full legal name, but I simply thought that people would be more likely to type "Star Wars Kid" into the search bar than they would "Ghyslain Raza" (most of the people I know who are familiar with the case can't even spell "Ghyslain Raza"). Again, just a suggestion. Kakashi-sensei 20:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

That probably makes sense, under the Wikipedia:Use common names policy. -- Curps 04:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed then? Kakashi-sensei 13:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This makes sense. There are currently 81,200 Google results for "Star Wars Kid" and only 2,650 results for "Ghyslain Raza." Star Wars Kid should be the primary entry, and Ghyslain Raza should redirect to it. --4.38.40.52 02:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree also, change it to Star Wars kid Themindset 03:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There you go, I changed it. Themindset 04:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant

This issue is rather moot, especially considering that millions of people have already seen the videos and know full well who this kid is. Removing his last name from this entry isn't going to make any difference considering the results delivered by a Google search merely using his first name are all in reference to Raza as the one and only SWK. So drop it already. SWK for life! --260 16:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image

The image was deleted as a copyvio, I was agreed that fair use was not applicable. Here is the discussion from WP:CP.--nixie 12:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:Star_Wars_Kid.jpg Screen shots from a school video posted on the internet as a prank against the fat kid in the video - no source cited and no licence given. A curate's egg 14:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Accepted fair use. See Template:Screenshot. Postdlf 16:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT CORRECT - THE VIDEO WAS TAKEN BY THE FAT KID AND USED WITHOUT HIS PERMISSION BY HIS SCHOOL MATES - HIS PARENTS THEN SUED THEM - FAIRUSE - I DON'T THINK SO A curate's egg 07:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I see someone has now removed the VIO tag calling it "bogus". Can someone determine whether this is a vio picture or not - ok it is a screenshot - but the video was posted on the internet as a prank and seemingly without permission - this would seem to be mean it is a copyvio as is everthing that flows from it. A curate's egg 09:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Under US law, a photograph focused on and featuring an identifiable person cannot be published without that person's permission. Exceptions exist for public figures and celebrities, but it would be stretching a point to say that the Star Wars kid was a celebrity, especially since his only claim to fame resulted from a violation of his rights associated with this material. Hence I would agree it should be deleted. Dragons flight 03:59, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

This armchair lawyering is, as usual, fucking ridonkulous. In a court of law, exactly how does one define a "celebrity"? Are you a celebrity if you are a hidden character in a top-selling console video game, like Tony Hawk's Underground 2? What if reference is made to you in a television series, such as Veronica Mars? Or wait, what if your infamous video is played on a huge-ass Jumbotron screen at SBC Park during a San Francisco Giants game, are you a celebrity then? If this image is indeed a "copyvio", then mark it for deletion— I'll be right behind you to contest it is not. Like it or not, this kid is a celebrity. —RaD Man (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Radman, pusuant to our dispute when you kept reverting pics so that your friend could appear in over 20 wikipedia articles that didn't relate to him... I must say you are a rather huge hypocrit. I invite everyone here to go read Radman's statements on my talk page to see how important copyvio is to him (or, at least, when he's a proxy-puppet for his buddy). Themindset 02:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Without resorting to personal attacks, I invite people to go read them too. That argument was whether to allow a substandard "promo photo" which was being uploaded by you, or a higher quality, public domain image uploaded by User:Alkivar. This argument is whether or not a copyvio is taking place, and I submit that one is not, which is why the image hasn't been deleted through the Wikipedia image deletion process. Someone, please prove me wrong by submitting this to IfD. —RaD Man (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new image here before coming across this discussion, I'll wait to see what the final verdict is before actually editing the article -- MacAddct1984 06:20, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but Image:star_wars_kid.png meets my own interpretation of fair use. Can someone please cite the link to the original WP:IFD discussion? Hall Monitor 17:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The only archive of it I can find exists here: here -- MacAddct1984 22:22, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment NNDB has a picture of this kid on their site here. 71.65.54.92 05:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I added this photo to the article, though it may have been a careless mistake. Edit at will. —Joshfist 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What was the result of the legal preceedings?

The article doesn't make mention of it.--Micro506 16:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to any recent (post-2003) news at all about this on the Internet. -- Curps 19:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

How ironic... Serendipodous 16:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is he all right?

I didn't know the poor kid ended up in a mental institution over this, but then, I shouldn't have been surprised. What happened to him really is unfair, and an abject lesson in the dangers of our goldfish-bowl society (and a reminder of just how cruel and venal kids can be- I had no idea that they had actually broken into his locker. That's vile). I am a bit troubled by this article though; are we not contributing to this kid's undeserved noteriety?Serendipodous 17:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, and to add to that, Wikipedia is not here to protect people's feelings. It's an encyclopedia, not a kindergarden project. Themindset 22:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if the article is going to do any harm - the damage is done. If anything its an example of how cruel some people are and a reminder of it. But I must say, what happened to him was terrible. What absolute bastards. Forever young 13:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I would think that instead of contributing to his pain, this article does a fairly good job of fleshing out the fact that this is a real person who was the victim of a very cruel long-term prank. If anything it should help to educate people, and prevent them from sharing the video and laughing at his expense. I am curious, though, about the outcome of the lawsuit? I searched a little bit for the outcome, and couldn't find anything other than announcements that it was filed.Starfoxy 03:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What the heck's the guy's problem, anyway? I would love to have a video seen by millions of people, even if I was somewhat ungraceful in it. Besides, the video's been altered many times to add the lightsaber and wooshing effects, and I would think a true Star Wars fan would think that's pretty freakin' cool. I know I would.

In any event, if he didn't want the video to appear on the Internet, he shouldn't have left it in a studio for months-- or heck, even made the video at all. ekedolphin 18:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"In any event, if he didn't want the video to appear on the Internet, he shouldn't have left it in a studio for months-- or heck, even made the video at all" -Eh? Are you seriously suggesting that if you create any private material, you should not be surprised if someone puts it on the internet? So if I broke into your house and stole your videos of your vacation and put it on the internet, you'd just shrug your shoulders and say fair game? Ridiculous. Magic Pickle 21:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links to the videos

Obviously, the video was a classic example of cyberbullying. By providing links to websites containing the original (or modified) videos, we are contributing to the problem. Thus, I believe that it would be prudent to remove such links. Brent Woods 23:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's intent is to inform, even if that information might hurt somebody. This is an article about an internet phenomenan. It would be absurd for it not to have a link to its subject. We give link to hate sites like Godhatesfags.com, a KKK site, some neo-Nazi sites, etc., and they are far more damaging. -LtNOWIS 04:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we can (and should) discuss the internet phenomenon itself and the history of the incident; the positive effect is that it would raise awareness on the whole issue of cyberbullying. However, linking to the video itself would prolong the bullying problem. By the same token, we could have articles about racism that give the facts and history behind racist groups such as KKK (maintaining NPOV), but we should not link to sites that actively promote racism as this defeats the purpose of informing. Brent Woods 05:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Since when is Wikipedia's final purpose to stop racism? -LtNOWIS 06:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not, and nor is it Wikipedia's purpose to promote it. All I'm saying is that we should give the facts on these issues (NPOV), but not link to sites that give opinions or promote such activity. Seasons Greetings. Brent Woods 18:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Truth?

When you take a closer look at this case, you'll see that it's still not very clear what really happened. Look at the last seconds of the original Star Wars Kid video for example. There's a very short fragment of a basketball match. When you look even closer before that, you'll notice that Ghyslain runs to the camera, but does not switch it of. As if someone used the tape to film the basketbal match AFTER Ghyslain filmed himself.
Another thing: the file wasn't uploaded to Kazaa. You don't upload something to a p2p network, you share it. And the claim that it was uploaded/shared at April 19, 2003 is questionable too, because it is difficult to check this. Above that, the original(?) video states as Copyright '2003-04-14'. That's April 14.
The video above seem to have the original content, but does it also has the original name? I've heard that it was originally named Jackass_starwars_funny.wmv by the kids. When you think about it, that sounds more logical when you share something at a p2p network and you want it to be found. 'jackass', 'starwars' and 'funny' are all common search terms.
Furthermore, I don't think the file had been downloaded thousands, or even millions of times within a few weeks as often stated. That's as good as impossible. The web is big, but not as big that if you drop a videofile at Kazaa, it immediatly draws the attention of hundreds of users per week. The video was eventually downloaded thousands of times when sites began to host the clip and it's 'remixes' and when it got attention from the media all over the world.
Face 20:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt very much that kids from Trois-Rivières, Quebec would have given the file an English name... I imagine that came later. 69.156.104.183 05:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm Dutch, but I'm not typing Dutch here. After all, this is an international site where everybody speaks English. And Kazaa is an international filesharing program, where English is just the standard language.
Ofcourse, both your and my claim could be true. Another reason why this story could use a little clarification. Many sources on this page are French, and they, among other sources ofcourse, may contain more details about this case (see my above post). So if there's someone around here who can read French, has the time to read this sources exstensively and would like to help, I would be very pleased with that ;-).
Face 20:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quebec law

Isn't there something in Quebec law stating that individuals have an inviolable right to control the use of their own image, or something like that? DS 23:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, you're thinking of the case Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa Inc. But Wikipedia isn't hosted in Quebec, so there's not a lot they can do. 69.156.104.183 05:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Granted. But I'd think that was relevant to the lawsuit, yes? DS 15:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a law stating that the creator of a video owns that video, and if it is stolen from the creator, he still holds copyright. Hence, why we can't use a frame of it as fair use either. Baiter 05:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if the video is made with a school camera on a tape that's not yours?

And when exactly did he register a copyright in the USA? Liu Bei 13:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In the US, a copyright is automatic, and does not need to be registered. From the wikipedia article on copyright "In the United States, copyright has relatively recently been made automatic (in the style of the Berne Convention), which has had the effect of making it appear to be more like a property right. Thus, as with property, a copyright need not be granted or obtained through official registration with any Government Office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape or a letter), the copyright holder is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights."

oops, forgot to sign that Baiter 21:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest news

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060407.wxstarwars07/BNStory/National/home --Sonjaaa 16:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah-hah-hah! That wacky Ghyslain... may the eyes of the media be on him always. -- Bobak 22:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyber bullying?

I think if the assertion of "cyber-bullying" is going to be made, that the article had better defend it with sources, rather than make an empty assertion. It seems very POV to me. I was not aware that the majority of people who'd ever heard about this video on the Net thought anything bad about it or him. Rather, quite the opposite. Compare Ghyslain's story to Mahir Cagri, who later went on a US concert tour. The question remains why would Ghyslain tape himself and then leave the tape behind if he didn't think he was any good. Here's a tip, if you don't want people to see you, don't record yourself! And if you do, keep the tape! - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

-As I said earlier, to imply that personal creations are somehow fair game for others to steal, then we have created a rather strange society. So presumably if you don't want people to read your innermost thoughts, don't write a diary, either. As for cyber-bullying, I think most people who watch the vid are laughing at him, not with him. Mahir is somewhat different, because he's an example of someone picked out for being obscure and eccentric, not for looking silly alone, like SWK. The kid left his tape in a studio - ever thought that he made a silly mistake and simply forgot about it? It's a bit of a leap to suggest he left it there deliberately. If he wanted it on the net he could have put it there himself. Magic Pickle 21:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] notability policy for memes proposed

Please help build policy at: Wikipedia:Notability (memes). Thank you, --Urthogie 15:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funniest Wikipedia page ever

The artist rendition a la "Star Wars Universe"-style books almost made me pee my pants. Is he creature, protaganist, villain? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. I think you need to show a still image of the definitive video with Star Wars Episode I symphony music and added lightsaber visuals and sounds. CJ DUB 20:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I don't think we're on the same line as for sence of humour. That image is cool. -- Face 19:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, the thing that made me laugh the most was the insertion of anal sex under the "see also" section; sadly, I removed it.

...Correction--as I wrote this remark, approximately thirty to forty seconds later, someone else caught the same thing and deleted it!68.20.22.206 18:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC) russ.

[edit] EVERYONE READ: the person in question was NOT doing a Star Wars Imitation

I have had enough with everyone saying that this kid is the "Star Wars Kid".

When, in FACT, he is not imitating Darth Maul.

He is doing an Exhibition Kata from the Sega Dreamcast game "Soul Calibur", with the character "Kilik".

This is not an opinion, this is cold hard fact.

For anyone who has the game, unlock the Exhibition Kata for Kilik, and you will see that the kid was trying to do that.

Numerous times thorought the video this kid held onto one of the ends of his stick. If this were Star Wars, he would have lost his hand because you CAN'T TOUCH THE LIGHTSABER'S LIGHT.

In addition, he did Kilik stances in the video, as well as his DOWN + A+B Stick swinging from side to side.

In addition moreso, he placed one end on the floor to prop it in one of his stances, which you cannot do with a Lightsaber.

Please, for the love of god, stop spreading the lie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DARK ANDY (talk • contribs).

O MY GOSH!!!! This changes everything!!!!

Wrong, this changes nothing. He is well known as the Star Wars kid and is famous because of the sfx people have added to the video. Add the information to the article by all means (if you have a source) but it doesn't change the fact he is known as the Star Wars Kid. --Tim ^{(talk), (contribs)} 13:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does change it. If any person reads what I wrote, and then actually sees Soul Calibur's Kilik Exhibition, his/her mind will be changed, as they will know who he is actually imitating.

You fail to see the smaller picture of changing minds one at a time.

--ANDY ^{(talk), (contribs)}

I agree with ANDY, I think we rename this article Soul Calibur Kilik Exhibition Kid. 128.97.156.157 23:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not denying that it is a Soul Calibur impression, but he is still known as the star wars kid, and wouldn't be famous if it wasn't for the star wars effects added in later by many people. Add the information about Soul Calibur to the article if you want people to know about it. --Tim ^{(talk), (contribs)} 15:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I don't think it's as clear as you think it is.

First off, people can see the original star wars kid and a Darth Maul fight and Kilik's exhibition for research purposes. (Of course, this material is copyrighted so I don't know if it's welcome on a talk page, but then I've seen links to YouTube showing copyrighted material in articles, so who knows.)

Let me refute your points: it's unclear, if the video is of a Star Wars impression, whether or not the beams of light are supposed to project out the ends of the stick, or if they are part of the stick. You say the kid holds his hand at the end of the stick, which he'd try to avoid if it was the magic light. But if the light came out of the end, it wouldn't be the case. After watching the video a few times I don't remember him having his hand ON the end of the stick, just very near it.

As far as him touching the stick to the ground, well, a light saber can turn off one of its ends. He could just be careless.

It's unclear if his noises in the last part of the video are Kilik's stick whooshing through the air, or the light saber's buzzing/whooshing. Personally it sounds a little more like a light saber to me.

His choreographing is a lot more like Kilik than Darth Maul, but who says it has to be Darth Maul just because he's using a double sided weapon. It could be from a lot of fight scenes, and a lot of it could be original. Also, he never does the over the head nor tapping the ground that Kilik does.

The kid is just having fun with the camera. There is no reason he has to be 100% accurate to the Star Wars universe, nor even close. His carelessness is obvious when he steps on the cloth on the ground and slips.

Any resemblance to Kilik you see could be a coincidence.

I've seen it called a Kilik impression once in YouTube, and two or three times in blogs. Most people think it's a Star Wars impression. (But I was just doing a quick study, nothing in depth.)

So I think that the article should mention that most people believe it's a Star Wars imitation (because it looks quite a bit like one, and it's touted as one, and Soul Caliber isn't as popular so people don't identify with it), and some believe it's a Kilik imitation. See NPOV, No orginial research, and verifiability.

If I were bold enough, and a decent writer I'd edit it myself. Maybe I'll work up the nerve eventually. 70.66.9.162 11:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You've posted the wrong Kilik movie. The one you putted here is from Soul Calibur II, which was released in 2003. Ghyslain made his video in November 2002. You need this one from the first Soul Calibur. -- 82.217.240.47 17:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

He's also been edited into clips from The Matrix, Hulk, Braveheart, etc.... but he's still SWK despite what he was actually imitating. That's what the public at large knows him as, and that's how it will stay regardless of how much you love Soul Caliber. Screw Kilik. --260 22:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How many defendants?

The wording in the section about the lawsuits is a little confusing. Were there 3 or 4 defendants? --Chris Griswold 05:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colbert

Colbert did a spoof on this tonite on the Colbert Report. Haha. BlueWiz7 00:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That was hardly an impression of Star Wars Kid. Colbert was pointing out how ridiculous the blue (or green) screen usage was in the movies, implying that the actors do any real interaction comparable to the finished CGI production. Pencilneck 17:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It looked a lot like a parody of Star Wars Kid to me, and I suspect he and his writers were well aware of it. I realize that he was making a point beyond just impersonating SWK, but he did have inspiration. Vivaldi (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The media sez SWK. -- Zanimum 14:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is Trois-Rivières?

Is that a neighborhood in Quebec? Please forgive me for not knowing since I live on the other side of the continent in California, USA. But for me the information that he lives in Quebec is all I need to know about the issue. What is the reason for including Trois-Rivieres? It gives me the creepy feeling that it would make it easier for someone to look him up and find him rather than if just Quebec was given. I think it's cool to have an article on the cultural phenomenon of the "Star Wars kid", however when too much personal information is given it gives the wrong impression. I have taken out "Trois-Rivieres" twice and had it put back in again. I will not do anything more about it myself. Steve Dufour 01:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I learned that Trois-Rivieres is a town, not a neighborhood. However I still think the same logic holds. Steve Dufour 04:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's in the NNDB...if that qualifies as a reliable source, then it should be put back in there. Hbdragon88 05:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The source is not the issue. The privacy of a child is. Steve Dufour 12:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with you there, Steve. Our concern is simply to repeat and summarise what has already been said elsewhere. We cannot censor the truth, be it for any non-legal reason. We cannot make decisions on content based on morality, compassion or sympathy, as such a decision is necessarily subjective, and objectivism is and always will be the first rule of an encyclopaedia. This article is a biography, and the town in which one lives is, in my opinion, an important fact. This town has been reported as being his by what we consider a reliable source, therefore it's inclusion is wholly justified. Yandman 13:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Raza is now 18, based on info in other articles about the court case. He is no longer a child. TheRealFennShysa 16:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

But still he is a private, not a public person. I think the article is cool. However his fame is online, not in the physical world. Steve Dufour 04:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Trois-Rivieres is a big place, with over 100000 people - I don't think we need to worry about his privacy... it's not like we're handing out his home address. Themindset 16:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

I have tagged the article with this. Things like "The tape was left in the basement" "It was downloaded many times" counts as original research. -- Selmo ^(talk) 19:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)