Talk:Brandy Alexandre/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Comment

Hi... this is directed to the user SavvyCat (who from her comments alleges to be Brandy Alexandre, and whom I'll take at face value to indeed be her): I'm curious as to why you're blanking out the Informational block? Given that the information present in it can largely be found elsewhere on the net (for instance, the IAFD entry for Brandy Alexandre)? Do we need to remove it all, given that some of the information is self-evident (e.g., eye color, hair color, bust, etc.)?

As well, Wikipedia has a policy regarding editing one's own webpage (see Wikipedia:Autobiography). Is there a particular reason why you feel it shouldn't apply to you? Tabercil 20:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Verifiable facts only, please

Please post only facts into this article which are independently verifiable via legitimate sources. Internet rumors, auto-biographical statements made here at Wikipedia, blogs, Usenet trollings, etc. do not count. Only facts which are independently verifiable via legitimate sources.--Jimbo Wales 17:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just spent several hours researching, sourcing, and citing the previous copy that made up this article. I do believe that for an article its size, this may now be among those with the very highest number of citations.
I worked from the copy that had existed here until the recent edits by SavvyCat, and I also worked from a copy of her edits as well. I re-wrote most of the article, mainly re-wording the copy that was there, although also adding new material in a couple of small places. While researching, I found that much of the article had been lifted verbatim from various websites. I have attempted to re-word and paraphrase in each case of that I found, but I make no claims to having caught it all. If other editors find additional instances of verbatim copying, I hope you will revise and re-word those cases you find.
For those following the articles history, Jimbo removed much of the content yesterday, stating that is was mostly unsourced and uncited. As we all know, a large number of Wikipedia articles are mainly uncited, but Jimbo was of course correct to do what he did. Given a direct complaint from SavvyCat (who purports, in her edits and in notes in user talk pages, to be Brandy Alexandre, the subject of the article), he had to follow policy and remove uncited material.
I believe the article to be well-cited now, from a wide variety of sources (often multiple sources) and well within the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. SavvyCat's objections served to improve the article, in my opinion. The subject is certainly deserving of an encyclopedic entry.
One last comment - I'm personally sympathetic to Ms. Alexandre's pain at having been outed to her employer a few years ago, and the subsequent loss of her job. I find the behaviour of those who notified her employer, as well as that of the employer itself, to be deplorable. I certainly understand Alexandre's wish to keep it from happening again.
But, sadly but truthfully, that ship has sailed. Alexandre's identity has long since passed ]]into public discourse, and none of her efforts are going to be able to change that. In the course of researching this article, I was able to find many sources of this information, within seconds of starting the work. In my opinion, any attempt on the part of a public person, which actors (adult or otherwise) certainly are, is futile. As public figures, certain information is "open season", and especially in today's networked and database'd society, anonymity for such a public figure is impossible. It simply is one of the risks one assumes when deciding to become a public figure such as an entertainment performer. An alias may help keep casual observers in the dark, but anyone who wants to know will find a source for the information.
I also add that the futile attempt to put the genie back in the bottle often only makes the situation worse. As in the case of this very Wikipedia article - until SavvyCat began her campaign to blank the entire (or sections of) the article, Alexandre's full name was not included in it, only a first name (with a possible alternate spelling) and a possible middle name. During the citation research, her full name was prominently featured in many of the sources I found, including a very authoritative public record, and is now included in the Wikipedia article. Perhaps this would have happened eventually anyway, during later edits and additions to the article - but in fact it happened now as a direct effect of the research project that ensued because of attempts to erase the un-eraseable. --Krich (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Nicely done, Krich. Only problem is the references don't seem to work properly for me, but I can see where the link is supposed to go by doing an edit. I'd fix it myself, but I don't consider myself knowledgable enough about the Wiki mark-up language to know what to do... Tabercil 16:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, Tabercil. I've now fixed the footnote links. --Krich (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
While you've made much improvement, I suggest removing use of nndb.com in this case. Sometimes its fine for non-contested information. It's basically a tertiary source like us, and there's always a risk using sources like this create "info loops" (aka rumors). We say something, someboy follows it, we follow them, and everybody figures its true, because they all read it somewhere. We need primary+secodnary sources that we can be confident have been fact checked. Presence on "rec.arts.movies.erotica." could just be a rumor we're retelling (also, I'm not sure its even signficant). Also, I would consider groups.google.com to be a non-reliable source. Perhaps, in some articles where there's little contesting of info, such sources might be ok, but perhaps not here. --Rob 19:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I have to diagree. If Google Groups is such a non-reliable source, why is there a citation template specifically for Google Groups citations (I couldn't get the template to work properly for me, but it is prominently listed in Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations)? Alexandre's postings on Usenet are significant to both her personal history and in the history of the Internet (note that one of the sources shows that an often-used piece of Usenet Jargon was named after her).
NNDB is a source. If it was the only source relied upon in the paragrapgh, I might more see your point, but the entire graph you removed had multiple sources. I had to go to the common sources of information for this area of endeavour, and I included multiple sources that all agreed on the information presented. I don't think it's our job as editors here to reject the source because we haven't fact-checked all of their published info. We aren't conducting original research, we are citing where others have published. In my opinion, rather than remove information that has several sources, one should look for sources for conflicting or opposing information/interpretation and cite them as well. I found no sources (although there certainly could be some I just didn't find) that refuted the major information presented.
Am I happy that these sources aren't all books and academic papers? What can I say - in the arenas where Alexandre has made herself both active and known, common sources are what they are. I had to source comments about her, and comments she has given, in the venues where they were made, and by the websites that document these areas. I obviously think the paragraph removed should stay, although I won't revert it myself at this point. --Krich (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

A reliable source requires that the author be trusted. It's impossible to trust an unknown author. Google Groups doesn't authentic the authors, and can never be relied on. Existence of templates does not imply policy. WP:V trumps everything else. NNDB (like IMDB) is a good source for lots of things. But some things, like a woman's's posting in a particular UseNet group, is little more then gossip (note: just below the claim, it says "Slept with: Jon Dough", so let's not take that to seriously). We have no reason to think nndb has verified this claim. Everybody can find rumors on Google, without our assistance. We're citing sources, as we want to send people to reliable sources. If you add back a revised paragraph, I won't be the next person to revert, and will let others chip-in, if they wish. If others accept it, I'll accept it. --Rob 21:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

With the Usenet postings, after thought I see some of your point. I first relied on the existance of the template for the Google Groups citations as an indication this was acceptable sourcing. I had come across the template when directed to it by the Wikipedia:Citations and Wikipedia:footnotes articles. I attempted to include multiple citations along with the Google Groups cite, and was it intended to illustrate that some of the postings mentioned in the other sources had indeed gone on. However, Wikipedia:reliable sources, which while only a guideline, clearly says that Usenet postings should not be used as either primary or secondary sources.
I understand the sensibility of that when using a Usenet post or thread as a source on the factual assertions made in the postings; but many series of postings on Usenet became (in)famous in the history of the early popular Internet, and several are events worth documenting. I wonder how most such events could be cited, given this restriction. Google Groups at leaves gives us a source for the information that the postings in question happened, if not a source on the assertions made within the posts.
It's muddled to me, and as such, I'm taking your point on this one. I'll look further into the issue, and see if there isn't some way to include a notable series of events on a notable service of the early popular Internet (specifically Usenet) without bumping into these problems.
As to NNDB, I'm still in disagreement. While I have already conceeded that I would prefer more acedemic or "mainstream" sources, if we are to be able to mention these subjects at all, we must sometimes take our sources as we find them. In the adult film industry, the most authorative experts and sources often don't appear very mainstresm in appaearance. In the cases where NNDB is still cited in the article after your edits, it is one of either two or three total cites for the information in question. Multiple citations were made in these cases precisely because we can't easily verify the factual content of some of the sources - but we can verify that common sources of information in this subject area have published the information in question.
As to NNDB's mention of sex between Alexandre and Jon Dough - as I said, given the subject matter, it's best not to be judgmental, especially when NNDB is correct. We are talking about people who [had sex on camera together more than once]. --Krich (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Killfile sources?

Apparently we're now using this as a "reference". According to the site's own page it is "In it is held everyone from the most vile Usenet criminals and the most innocent bystanders, all held together by the common thread of having offended Tim at some time in the past.". Now, I'm not sure if this is a serious hate site, or just a bad joke (with a bad sense of humor), but I don't get how it got to be a source for an article (either way). --Rob 17:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Tim Skirvin is a reliable and very well-respected source on the Usenet who has a weird sense of humor. He was one of the leading fighters of Usenet spam in the middle 1990's. The information that he provides about Brandy Alexandre's use of the Usenet, which has become eponymous, is verified in other secondary sources as well. Robert McClenon 18:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Usenet Reliability

The statement is made that Google Groups does not verify its information. That requires explanation. Google Groups is simply an archive of posts to the Usenet. Google, and previously Dejanews (from whom Google bought the archive), are reliable and verifiable sources as to the fact that something was posted to Usenet. Due to the insecurity of the Usenet and its vulnerability to abuse, archived posts to Usenet may be forgeries. If a post to the Usenet is archived in Google Groups that claims to be by Brandy Alexandre, for instance, it is a fact that it was posted to Usenet. It might not have been posted by Brandy Alexandre. Also, the fact that a statement was posted to Usenet does not mean it is true. The unreliability of Usenet posts is notorious.

On the other hand, the Usenet as a medium and subculture has its own history that is maintained primarily on the World Wide Web. Well-maintained web pages by knowledgable Usenet users are valid secondary sources, just as Wikipedia is itself a set of well-maintained web pages whose verifiability depends on the integrity of its editors. Tim Skirvin and the Jargon File are reliable sources as to Brandy Alexandre's use of the Usenet. Robert McClenon 18:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not the case. Also, you're view goes against WP:V, which makes quite clear what's reliable and what's not. Saying a UseNet post verifies it's own existence, could be used by any source to verify itself. Every web site on Earth could be "cited" to verify it says what it says, by this odd logic. Also, we can't use GoogleGroups to tell what Brandy said, as we don't know if it's her saying it, or its somebody pretending to be her. Anybody who wishes to use Wikipedia to libel somebody can simply follow these easy steps:
  1. Write the libel on their personal web site
  2. Write the libel in a UseNet posting (leading to GoogleGroups)
  3. Write the libel on Wikipedia "citing" GoogeGroups and and their personal web site
  4. Write the libel elsehwere, citing Wikipedia
  5. Go back to each of their personal web site, and the UseNet, and cite Wikipedia as the final official encyclopedic "reference". Declare their personal web site a "well maintained secondary source".
  6. When questioned, point to all the different sources, and encourage people to "Google for the facts"
  7. The circle of rumors is complete. There's lots of "evidence" of the libel. Yet, not one single reliable source.

--Rob 18:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Secret Identities

To my view, most of the editing now going on in the article is routine, good-faith based work. The article is being cleaned up, tightened up, and citations are now being required and debated for all information included. All good.

But the issue of whether a public figure is allowed to be known only by an alias, when that public figure's name is known, documented, and not disputed by anyone, is perhaps not so routine. I'd like to see a discussion begin on this topic, especially since Jimbo has taken an interest, and expressed his current personal opinion (not authoritative or policy, as he decently pointed out when posting here).

I've expressed my opinion in some detail above. The information is public, factual, and certainly a basic biograpical fact that is encyclopedic in nature. I really don't see a non-emotional argument for allowing the information to be suppressed, when no other public figures are given the same priviledge.

I note that a consensus on this topic will have a large effect - in doing some basic research on how the entries of others adult actors are presented here on Wikipedia, it appears that close to 50% of them include a birth or legal name in addition to the alias. I only got through "A" and "B" female actors, as the list is very long, but I'm assuming the trend holds true outside of this sample. --Krich (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

A name can be known by others, but the argument here is whether that name was made public by a reliable source. The fact in this case is that it wasn't, and you cannot find an original source from where the name was taken. I think you have taken this issue personally, and you personal feelings need to be left out of it. Weighing the pros and cons, there are far more reasons not to include a real name than to include it. Even if it came from a public media source, just because you can does that mean you should given what you know about the underlying issue? Should every single little snippet of a person's life that becomes known be included into a Wiki article? If so, then why isn't the entry for Abraham Lincoln so many hundred times larger than it is? Again, I have to say that I find you "sympathies" extraordinarily transparent given that you're putting up such a fight to have the name included. As I said, you've taken it personally, and perhaps now your desire is bolstered by malicious intent because you know what has happened and that I "deserved it." That's what is read between the lines. --SavvyCat 22:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that it's me who is taking this personally - I don't have any personal stake in this argument. As the person who says she's Alexandre, perhaps it's far more likely to be you who is taking this issue personally? I can understand that, although I can't agree with the stance that possible emotional reaction may be causing you to take.
The name is mentioned by many sources, far more than were initially included in the citations. The factual nature of the name has been confirmed by public documents. While the sources available for this industry are often unconventional, they are what they are, and the name has been published many times in many places. If the factual nature of the name itself were in question, there might be more of an argument. But even you do not dispute that the sources are indeed correct.
Your Lincoln analogy is a bit stretched, as he is a (bit) more famous than you, in a slightly less controversial area. But even among US presidents, birth names or changed names are almost universally mentioned in bios of them. Bill Clinton was Bill Blythe until he was a teenager, for example. I'm sure that if Lincoln used an alias at any time in his life, that fact would be included in encyclopedic entries. And to use examples closer to this subject matter, other actors and actresses routinely have their birth names included in articles and biographes written about them. As I've mentioned before, when you make yourself a public figure, especially in entertainment, it's a reasonable consequence that you will be identifiable.
If it were Newsweek or Time that wrote about routine news of the adult industry, the name would likely be mentioned in more conventional sources. The sources that report and write about the adult industry often appear less than mainstream in appearance. If Wikipedia is to include material about the adult industry at all in any detail, some of these sources will almost have to be cited. I do agree that in these cases, multiple sourcing is preferable.
I've made my sentiments concerning your employment problems very clear. I have no ill intent toward you. If anything, I'm an ardent supporter of First Amendment isues, including the right to produce and view adult entertainment. As far as I'm personally concerned, pornography, along with other sex industries, can be a very positive and productive part of life. I regret that some people see it in such a moralistically negative light. Assuming negative motivations, in direct repudiation of my stated motivations, is quite uncivil. I've attempted to be repectful to you in discussions here, I note that I've not received the same in return.
My only reason for bringing this up is exactly what I have stated - a belief that there isn't a non-emotional reason to supress publicly available information, especially when that information is very basic and biographical in nature. I'm concerned that your campaign here, based on your personal feelings and issues, sets a precedant for suppressing certain public information. I don't think keeping public information secret is in line with the nature of this project, and I'm engaging in discussion here to see if the community here agrees. --Krich (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't hear Jimbo say the name could never be added, just to wait till after the discussion, and only if it's agreed the sources are in fact reliable. Perhaps add this talk page to a suitable section of WP:RFC for article disputes (I couldn't figure which one was best). Also, I would say for most other bios, the person's real name is a rather trivial uncontested point. Also, note, that we've periodically screwed up people's "real" names, relying on imdb, and other normally reliable sources, so experience warrants caution, more than anything. Anyway, hopefully others will chime in. --Rob 20:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Who said Jimbo did say the name couldn't be added? I tried to be specific above that he had written with his own opinion, carefully not mandating anything.
In the article itself, he added a comment (hidden from the public article, but there to be seen by those doing actual edits) saying that he was requesting that the name not be re-added, "As a courtesy while we discuss the issues surrounding this article". I am abiding by that request.
I don't think we're at the point of needing an RfC yet - my entire point above is that we haven't even started discussing this issue yet to gauge consensus, so I was hoping to get some talk here started on the topic. If the consensus developed here is toward not supressing the information, that's already the status quo in the other articles, and nothing changes. If the consensus moves toward suppressing the information, then perhaps an RfC would be a good idea, as that would impact dozens of other articles. --Krich (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the issues involved aren't specific to this article, I'm thinking Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons might be a better place to talk about privacy issues in general for bio subjects. --Rob 00:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

note 7

The last paragraph is supported by note #7 http://www.rame.net/aarle/perf_a.html. But this really doesn't say anything, other the statement she has her own web site. Even on that one small note, it's rather useless, as the link it provides is dead. Is there a reliable source to back-up the claims of the paragraph (e.g. why she was fired, and from what organization)? --Rob 21:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the last paragraph is supported by note #10, {{note|brandy-spark}}, not note #7. The ref tag after the paragraph correctly calls the spark note, I'm not sure why it's now showing up with #7 in the brackets. There have been so many edits and deletions by folks not bothering to clean up the notes at the same time, it's gotten a bit out of whack. I'm not superfamiliar with the markup language, but I'm attempting to figure out why it's displaying incorrectly now. --Krich (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I found and fixed the problem. It came about because people are removing or otherwise re-ordering the footnotes without adjusting the article text to compensate - it caused some of the reference links to point to the wrong note. --Krich (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I've reverted to the pre-3RR violation version and warned Savvy not to violate it again. However, regarding the source she disputes, this [1] can't be regarded as reliable, so she's right to remove it in my view. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that this citation is not used as a primary or secondary source. It's a tertiary source, an aggregator of information. While not appropriate to rely on alone as a citation, when used in conjunction with and to support other sources that *are* either primary or secondary (as is the case in this article), it's my understanding from reading the above and other articles here regarding citations that this is acceptable. And has been commented on above, the mainstream appearance or quality of sources is not the greatest, across-the-board, in the adult film industry. If we cull out all sources that don't rise to Playboy status, as was suggested by someone else before, there isn't going to be much way to source and document the activities in this industry.
That said - the info this citation supports already has other citation. Unless further attempts are made to cull away any available sources of information on the subject, I can live with this one going away. I do object to the knee-jerk reverts, though, and the lack of respect for the editing process here that this and other similar behaviour represents. --Krich (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
It's being used as a secondary source in this case, Krich, and it's not at all acceptable as any kind of source for Wikipedia, because it's a website with no obvious third-party fact-checking or editorial oversight, and it's not clear who runs it. I take your point that there aren't any good sources on the porn industry, but unless an exception for it is built into the policies, any edits have to conform to those policies, and if that means the article has to be very short, so be it. The relevant policies are WP:NOR and WP:V. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
How do you come by the opinion that it's being used as a secondary source here? The other citation is a secondary source, but by it's very nature, NNDB is a tertiary source - and it was included only to support the other citation.
Many database-type or aggregate sites are routinely used as citable sources on Wikipedia, and not objected to in other articles of a more mainstream nature. It appears someone is going to have to spend a great deal of time removing 90% of what has been written about adult actors on Wikipedia. Because most of the sources in their industry are considered sleazy, unprofessional, or otherwise not reliable by people outside their business (often only because of the business they are in), Wikipedia will be an information source that contains almost no information about this industry. I note that none of the information cited by this unreliable source is incorrect, or indeed refuted by the article's subject.
I'm going to voluntarily remove this citation at this time, as it's not needed to support the cited paragraph, and given that there is more than one objection to it now. --Krich (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Krich, a secondary source (when referring to a person or publication) is a source with no direct knowledge of or involvement in the material they're being used as a source for. For example, if I witness a car accident and tell a reporter what I saw, my statement is a primary source for that reporter. She writes my story for the local newspaper, and you read that story. The newspaper story acts as a secondary source about the accident for you. (What counts as primary and secondary varies a little according to when the event occurred, because a newspaper story could count as primary-source material about something that happened 100 years ago, and also journalists use the terms somewhat differently from historians, but the above is a fair summary anyway.)
Database-type websites should not be used as sources, to the best of my knowledge. I do take your point about the nature of the industry, but the policies don't make exceptions for the porn industry. Anyone could set up a website tomorrow, noting "Krich, 36,28,36, has slept with X." SlimVirgin (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
<smiles> I'm aware of what a secondary source is. How does that definition answer my assertion that NNDB is a tertiary source? SV, a tertiary source is "a selection and compilation of primary and secondary sources", or as Wikipedia:Reliable sources puts it, one that "summarizes secondary sources". NNDB is such a tertiary source, by it's very nature. As tertiary source notes, encyclopedias often make use of tertiary sources. As far as I know, they are not disallowed on Wikipedia, although I personally wouldn't use one without an additional secondary source to cite as well.
You're not using the website as a tertiary source. It is a tertiary source, but your use of it is as a secondary source i.e. a source of information about something other than itself with which it has no close connection. The important distinction in Wikipedia is between reputable and non-reputable sources, and this clearly isn't reputable for a number of reasons: it looks like self-publishing, we don't know who's behind it, we don't know what its sources are, it doesn't look as though it has any fact-checking process, and so on. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
By your way of looking at it, any time a teriary source is used, it could be argued by someone that it was actually being cited as secondary. A source is what it is, and this source is tertiary. You can claim I used it as a primary source too, but that won't make it one. This is off-point a bit, as we both agree below that the real issue isn't the inclusion of a teriary source, but the reliability of it. --Krich (talk) 07:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
If you were to use the Encyclopedia Britannica as a source on the article about itself, you'd be using it as a primary source. If you were to use it as a source on an article about Karl Marx, you'd be using it as a secondary source. The distinction matters because some websites are allowed to be used as primary but not as secondary sources e.g. extremist sites and the site we discuss earlier. The description of a source as a "tertiary" one is a bit misleading, in my view, because a source is always described in terms of its relationship to the information it is being used to support i.e. the type of source it is is always relative. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but now you are talking about two different instances - one where a person pulls information from Britannica for an article about Britannica... and then every other case of how it's used. The only case where Britannica could be interpreted as a primary source is your example. Since encyclopedias are considered tertiary sources rather than secondary, it would be more proper to say that in the Marx example, Britannica is used as a tertiary rather than a secondary source. The specific Marx article, if it existed on its own, may be considered a secondary source, but when cited within its context as a part of Britannica (which gives the citation its authorative weight), it's clearly tertiary. In our case here, the citation (I removed) is a tertiary source by definition, and calling it secondary is pushing a private interpretation, rather than accepted definition.
Again, this really is off-point, and I'm ready to drop it now ;) --Krich (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
But the ultimate point I think you make is, is this a reliable tertiary source? In deference to that question from more than one person, I have voluntarily removed the citation.
Thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
As to your last analogy - if the website was accepted by the industry in which I worked and was known in as a common tertiary (or primary, or secondary) source - and if all such commonly accepted sources of information agree - and if I were notable enough and my sleeping with X was also notable - then, yes, someone could write that commonly accepted sources have said that I slept with X (and that I have an odd figure for a man). --Krich (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Using the best image we can

Originally Image:Brandy Alexandre 17471.jpg was used on this page, but was removed due to suspicion of its being a copyright violation (that is, that the fair-use case was too poor to support its use in this article). Later user:SavvyCat uploaded Image:BA-DEBL-1989.jpg, which does not yet have licence information. I've asked SavvyCat to add the appropriate licence tags to that image. In the meantime, IFD has voted that Image:Brandy Alexandre 17471.jpg shouldn't be deleted, as voters there seem to support the fair-use claim. So I believe the consequence of this is:

  • If SavvyCat can licence Image:BA-DEBL-1989.jpg under a free licence then that's clearly the image we should use. In that event the fair-use case for Image:Brandy Alexandre 17471.jpg is weakened or destroyed, and so we should renominate it on IFD.
  • If, however, SavvyCat can't licence the image under a free licence (or if SavvyCat, who hasn't edited for several days, doesn't return) then Image:BA-DEBL-1989.jpg will probably be deleted (I don't think there's a fair-use claim to be made for it). In that event Image:Brandy Alexandre 17471.jpg I believe should be restored.

Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted revisions

All revisions of this article before December 30 were deleted on January 13. Why? I've asked for clarification at User talk:Brian0918. I see there's some discussion earlier on this page about whether to include "Alexandre"'s real name. As far as I can tell, the argument is over whether there is a reliable source to cite. Whether or not the name should be included in the article, is there any reason for expunging it from the history? dbenbenn | talk 01:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to delete them, so I did :) They should probably remain deleted. I don't have any opinion either way in the specific matters of this page. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-22 01:07
Who asked? Note that because of the deletion, the article is currently a copyright violation. The GFDL requires that all the authors be attributed, but they aren't.
I think the old revisions should be restored. Whether it ends up being decided to include her real name or not, I don't know of any reason not to leave it in the history. dbenbenn | talk 17:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The terms used in the GFDL are not the same we use. "History" does not mean the same thing as our history tab. This is according to Jimbo. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-22 17:52
Well, regardless, the GFDL requires attribution. Again, "Who asked?" dbenbenn | talk 21:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Your interpretation of the GFDL's application to Wikipedia may not be legally correct, though. The request came from on high. :) — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-22 21:57
"On high" = Jimbo? Or who? Basically, I'm trying to determine whether there's any reason for me not to add Alexandre's real name to the article. dbenbenn | talk 01:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
It sounded serious, so if you undeleted, it would probably have to be deleted again, and deleting was a bit tedious. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-23 01:53
"On high" = who? If you want those revisions to remain deleted, I think you're obligated to give complete details on why. Anyway, what if I or someone else simply edited the article, and happened to add Alexandre's real name? dbenbenn | talk 03:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, Jimbo of course. I think if someone re-added the name, it would probably be deleted. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-23 03:32
Did Jimbo explain why? Did he make the request somewhere on-wiki? dbenbenn | talk 01:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


Jimbo probably asked off-wiki. Alexandre, in private email to me a few weeks ago, stated that she had asked Jimbo to do so, and she claims he agreed (although Jimbo didn't confirm that when I asked him). In private email to me, Jimbo stated that he only originally removed the info pending proper sourcing, and only asked that the name not be re-added to the article while discussion was on-going regarding this issue on this talk page (see the hidden comments at the top of the article itself for Jimbo's request).

However, there hasn't been any further discussion since then. There were and are two basic issues: 1) whether Alexandre has a right to demand that her real name not be revealed, and 2) whether there are reliable sources for that name.

As to point one, I've gone on record here that I believe she has no such right to demand the removal of this information, as Alexandre is a public figure, an entertainer whose likeness and recordings have been viewed by hundreds of thousands of people, and basic items of her biograpical record (such as her name) are therefore no longer considered private.

Point two is completely different. There were three sources for her identity that were cited in the article - NNDB, Vintage Porn Encyclopedia, and the public record of Alexandre's bankruptcy (where both her real and stage names are linked in public documents). Jimbo has stated that he does not consider NNDB a reliable source, and although I'm not so sure he's right, I've personally deferred and no longer will argue for its inclusion. No one has made any claim at all with regard to the Vintage Porn Encyclopedia citation, it was simply removed without comment when her real name was initially removed. The citation itself appears to have been removed during the history deletion, but can be found by doing a simple Google search.

Alexandre claims that the public record of her bankruptcy, where her real and stage names are both included, is not actually public. That citation, including the case number that allows the record to be accessed, was also removed during the history deletion (again, the case number and details are easily found online). The issue of whether this was a proper, reliable citation was also never discussed here (although Alexandre and I talked about it on my talk page), and Jimbo only asked that this info not be re-added until after that discussion had happened. I honestly don't buy Alexandre's assertion that these public documents aren't actually public, but I've ceased editing this article for a while - legal threats and multiple emails from Alexandre aren't fun, and I have better things to do with my Wiki-time.

I note that Jimbo told me in private email that Alexandre had convinced him that she didn't want to sway article content, that she just wanted to have her argument regarding her identity heard, and that specific info removed. Jimbo specifically told me that he believed Alexandre wouldn't edit her own article to push her other personal POV on other issues (even though I pointed out to him that she already had). While I haven't removed them, Alexandre edited the article extensively again a few days ago, adding quite a bit of unsourced information, much of which is POV and unverifiable. --Krich (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy

I think not putting her real name in the article is a matter of courtesy. I do not doubt the real name is known and verifiable. However, it is Brandy Alexandre who was the porn star, not the person who is now just trying to live a normal life. Fred Bauder 17:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the only relevant questions are whether BA's real name is known and verifiable and whether the real name is, of itself, notable. I think the recent Brandt AfD and Wikiethics discussion make eminently clear that, where a subject or piece of information is notable and verifiable, nothing can militate strongly enough against inclusion to warrant our excising information. I readily concede that the contrary view is rapidly gaining support amongst Wikipedians (see, e.g., the discussions surrounding WP:OFFICE, where many concur with Jimbo that, even where an article's subject has properly been referred to as non-notable in, e.g., a deletion discussion, such discussion should be removed where the subject has expressed a dislike of the ascription of the appellative "nn" to him/herself), but I do not see that a consensus exists for the view that Wikipedians should exercise ethical judgments in writing articles; we are not, as the Wikiethics discussion has demonstrated, journalists, and, notwithstanding my belief that even journalists oughtn't to abide by the harm-limitation principle, we don't need to comport our editing with any code of ethics that compromises the dissemination of information. Of course, if the fact of BA's real name is non-notable or cannot be independently verified, then the name should not be given; I have no opinion as to the notability of a subject's real name (I'm inclined to think the real name to be non-notable, but I haven't given it sufficient thought), but I certainly don't think the desire for the subject of an article to "live a normal life" should ever outweigh our concern with building an encyclopedia. Jimbo seems not to have expressed a view as to the merits of the inclusion of the real name in the article, but only to have expressed a view that such inclusion should only be done with proper sourcing, inasmuch as BA contended that the sources previously cited were inconsistent with WP:CITE and inasmuch as she suggested that, as her real name is not known publicly, the unsourced revealing of the name might predispose Wikipedia to legal action. Irrespective of the propriety of BA's essaying a legal threat (as she was writing as a subject and not as a Wikipedian, I don't think there's anything wrong with her suggesting that she might undertake legal action, especially given that she first made the suggestion not on a talk page in an effort to coerce changes but in, IIRC, a private e-mail to Jimbo in an effort better to understand Wikipedia policy) and irrespective of the baselessness of such a threat, Jimbo in no way seems to have suggested that the name should necessarily be excluded in view of privacy concerns; he intimates only that the name should not be included where the sources for the name are insufficiently verifiable or trusted, consistent with general Wikipedia policy. For my part, I don't think we should treat living subjects in a fashion different from that in which we treat deceased subjects, but I recognize that most other editors think otherwise; nevertheless, privacy concerns seem altogether irrelevant here. Joe 17:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The ironic thing here is that the very efforts she has made over the years to conceal her name,on Usenet and here, have made the posting of that name germane,more so than other porn stars.
Assuming that Savvy Cat is indeed Brandy Alexandre, her continued removal of the name in question could be construed as verification - if it is not her real name, how can the revelation of it cause harm? I would recommend it's inclusion, in line with other WP bios. Oldcritter 05:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, doing a quick search on Google, her own Amazon.com bio page shows her name (at least her last name plus her first initial). http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A2J92I8PSCDFCC/104-1940849-1415131 That shows me that it's ok for her to post it online, and if you look at her bio you'll see she even mentions her stage name. I'm sure she'll quickly change this now, but if she is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, her real name is notable enough to be included.--ElTri 08:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Amazon link that ElTri found is significant. If you look, the name on it is marked RealName, which means that it is the name on a credit card verified by Amazon. While anyone can make an Amazon account claiming to be Brandy Alexandre, and put down her birthdate from this article, the credit card companies are a lot less trusting as to giving out credit cards. So -- if that is the same name as in the Usenet postings -- that looks like a Reliable Source to me, and what's more, it looks like she put it out herself, of her own free will. That looks like we should be able to add it by any standard. However, as a courtesy, I will go one step further and ask SavvyCat , both on her talk page, and email (she has no email listed). AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I checked it out and agree. Although I have been convinced for some time of her name, this last verification puts it over the top for inclusion in WP. I suppose no harm is done by waiting a bit, but not sure what reply can be realisticly expected from SavvyCat that will make a difference now.Oldcritter 23:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, nothing from SavvyCat, and a few days including a weekend has passed. I'll put the abbreviated name from the Amazon page in the template, and a reference with a couple of sentences of explanation in the article. A couple of questions:
  1. Does anyone know how long that name has been in the Amazon profile? The first review on the profile dates from July 20, 2000, but that is no guarantee the name was there then. I'll write that the name had showed up "by" June 2006, but that's sort of unsatisfactory.
  2. In Usenet searches on Brandy Alexandre and the name, I've found the first name spelled with a "th" and an "r" in the third position. Since there are two versions, I'm going to leave it at the first initial. Anyone have a reference whether the "th" or the "r" is correct?

AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Aha. SavvyCat has responded, in deeds, though not in words. She struck my comments from her talk page, and a whole chunk of text from the Brandy Alexandre page, even more than was added. Meanwhile, the Amazon page has had the "pornstar Brandy Alexandre" line removed from it, probably at about the same time. Without further comments from her, I'm guessing this meant "Yes, that was me, but I didn't realize that writing this on my Amazon page would mean that it would become public and make it into the Wikipedia. I want to take it back."
After thinking about it for a while, I think we should let her "take it back". From a merely legalistic point of view, we no longer have a verifiable source, since the Amazon page wasn't archived, and no other reliable source reported on it. Possibly more important, she is a human being, screwed up, and pretty clearly wants her name kept hidden. I admit my feelings were hurt a bit by the way in which she did it, but that's life. I will restore the rest of what she deleted, but will leave the real name out. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting little backpedal you're doing there. I contacted Amazon about the impersonator and you can see the real name of that individuall is Kelly. Your info was bogus and you look like an idiot. Changed your mind, indeed. If that's what gets you through it. --SavvyCat 18:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your snide comments are not necessary, SavvyCat. Please review our policy on not conducting personal attacks. Thank you. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 20:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, but really... With all the fuss being about the confirmation of a credit card name and all, and what was previously seen as just a first initial and being all too good for those who want to get away with what has been clearly judged verbotten deserves a prsonal comment now and then. Why is it so damned important to these people anyway? I mean, I just want to say "grow up" and "get a friggin life, already." Cut me some slack for daring to say the emperor has no clothes when someone pretends to recant after such an embarassment. --SavvyCat 20:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. We understand this means a lot to you. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Brandy the Usenet personality

One hole in this article is the fact that during the early 1990s, Brandy Alexandre was a fairly prominent usenet personality (well, okay, someone with her name was a prominent usenet personality), known for her posts on alt.sex.movies about the porn industry. IIRC, her visibility on asm was what led to her eventual "outting".

She also had her own website named for her cat Kamikaze, which was her own soapbox about not only the porn industry but things in her daily life -- she had rants about her gym ripping her off, & a lousy hamburger she got from a fast food chain outlet -- pretty much the kind of thing you could find now on MySpace. (I'm unable to get the Wayback machine to pull up a copy of it.) -- llywrch 22:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Information regarding her Usenet appearances was once located on the article before it had been lobotimized months ago. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 17:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No Original Research

I am very disappointed in the display of poor judgment shown here. Tracking down someone's real name based on a credit card verification of an amazon profile is the very definition of original research, in addition to being borderline stalking, and in extremely poor taste.

Let me explain: no original research is a fundamental bedrock policy on Wikipedia. This means: unless you can confirm a controversial fact with a cite to an independent mainstream publication, you must leave it out of the article. This means: no attack blogs, no personal webpages, and for god's sake, I do not know why I have to explain this, it means no trying to make assumptions based on hunting down someone's profile on another website.

The people involved here should be ashamed of themselves.--Jimbo Wales 02:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo is correct with respect to WP:OR (although consider the several recent discussions about whether primary source materials—such as government records—ought to be exempeted from OR). I think he is altogether wrong, though, with respect to whether individuals ought to be ashamed. One should not be ashamed when he/she attempts to improve the encyclopedia, and certainly one's searching out a real name and appending it to an article is not in poor taste (and surely not borderline stalking; there is no jurisdiction in the United States that would make this poor judgment civilly or criminally actionable), for reasons previously enumerated here and elsewhere. I should say, as I have before, that I'm surely not part of the effort, well appreciated by Kelly Martin, to "out" pornstars (after all, as an anarcholibertarian amoral atheist, I'm not one to have any problem with pornography), but neither can I abide the suggestion that the insertion of original research (where such research doesn't serve to create legal liability for the Foundation) into an article apropos of a living person ought to be dealt with in a fashion different from that in which we'd deal with original research in an article about tuxedo cats. WP:BLP certainly doesn't suggest that one ought to deal less-than-civilly with those who contravene its tenets, especially where the latter act in furtherance of what they perceive to be encyclopedic interests (which apprehension one might make in view of the sundry Daniel Brandt AfDs, which make clear, I think, that a subject's desire for personal privacy or our concerns about his/her human dignity are wholly unencyclopedic and irrelevant to the project), and, even as I agree with the substance of Jimbo's comments, I find them to be condescending and indecorous (indeed, I don't know why I have to explain this serves, in practice, to impugn, rather untowardly, the intellectual capabilities of those about whom Jimbo writes). Joe 04:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The fact is that there is no original source, or document to which the general public has legal access or right to view, that bears the name. None. The mere fact that some people may know it is a moot point. And yes, it is stalking when given all that has occured, this "gentlemen" is going to absolute extremes to find something, anything, anywhere, that can be remotely plausible as "legitimate" to justify posting the information, or any part of it, because of the objection to it. This is, by the very definition, stalking.--SavvyCat 00:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Biography Portal

I would remove the biography portal tag from this page, as the article does not comply with the WP Biography guidelines:

For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the birth name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym.

Ironic, considering Jimbo's comments...Oldcritter 03:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's not go down this road again, please. As we have no reliable source for any birth name, we shouldn't be dragging out this dead horse and beating it again. Thank you. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 04:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Joe, I respect your contributions and point of view, and have not (nor will I in the future) posted Brandy's real name at any point during this controversy, as it is clear that the owner of Wikipedia does not want this. That said, her real name has been on the Internet for years, and can be readily found through USENET searches. Luke Ford published it for some time on his site, leading to her termination from Forrest Lawn, and her subsequent lawsuit. Brandy's numerous reverts verify that name - why protest so strongly about invasion of privacy if the information is not correct? My complaint, and this is the last time I will voice it, is that there appears to be a double standard for a porn performer biography as opposed to any other - the withholding of factual information due to the embarrassment of the subject of the article. That is not encyclopedic. But as you say, no point in beating this into the ground when the policy will not change.Oldcritter 06:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this article shows a complete double standard. Obviously with a fringe celeb there's not exactly going to be articles in the NY Times about them, but just typing in the name on Google brings up multiple sites listing the real name, and even lists the US trademark for Brandy Alexandre, registered to what is reported to be her real name on other sites. Obviously we can not use original research, however citing http://www.nndb.com/people/560/000026482/ would not be original research. The information on NNDB can be confirmed with a Yahoo search, which will even bring up a trademark registration of Brandy Alexandre to her real name. I imagine that would be considered original research to quote that in the article, but I don't see anything wrong with double checking sources before citing. NNDB is 100% accurate in this case and should be considered a reliable source.--DocVisor 11:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Doc, are you connected in any way to that website? Even though you support my argument, this does not sit well - you have only made one contribution to WP, and it is on a very controversial subject, putting the information into play again. My apologies if I am off base here, but I think we must be sure of NPOV before proceeding.Oldcritter 18:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not connected to that website. I previously commented on this article as ElTri, as I normally type random keys for my password, don't use e-mail, and only use a name till I get logged out somehow. Anywho, NNDB is used by hundreds of wikipedia pages, has it's own template on wikipedia, and is no less valid than imdb. Also, while we can't use original research in an article, there's no reason we can't use research to verify a source before we use it, and NNDB's information is easily verifiable as correct. As a matter of fact, Wikipedia policy states the following:

"Because conscious and unconscious biases are not always self-evident, you shouldn't necessarily be satisfied with a single source. Find another one and cross-check. If multiple independent sources agree and they have either no strong reason to be biased, or their biases are at cross purposes, then you may have a reliable account." Multiple independent sources agree on on the real name and NNDB has no known reason to be biased, so therefore we must assume that we have a reliable account. Like I said previously, a quick internet search pulls up quite a few sites with the same information, including the copyright of the name Brandy Alexandre, registered to the name on NNDB and listed on other sites including an adult DVD online store. I think based on all the information posted on this talk page and the number of sources online that confirm the information. There is no reason not to put the information on the site.

It seems her main issue is concerns with stalkers or losing her job again, but honestly while it may sound cruel, that is really her problem as she is the one who decided to be in the public eye, and our concern is to make Wikipedia as informational as possible, which includes putting hers, and any other celeb that uses a fake name's real name in their bios.--DocVisor 04:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to have to say this, but if Jimbo says that we can't include her name, then we can't, regardless of our POV on the subject. Therefore, there's no point in discussing this any further. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 04:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I can only refer back to my previous comments that someone who is so determined to find somehow, someway, any way to create a viable excuse to post something and label it as "legitimate," is fixated and obsessed, and thereby a stalker. Worse, someone who has to be "right." It has been made more than clear by the owner of this site, myself, and countless other well-adjusted people, that real names are neither necessary nor newsworthy enough to engage in such academic arguments and occupy so much mental effort to get around. Invoking Luke Ford, of all people, is evidence enough that certain individuals are willing to throw all things to the wall to see what will stick in hopes they can "have their way." I'm sure if anyone were to ask Luke Ford where he got his information, it was from some other web site. In fact, I know that to be true. Aside from gossip based on the ever-so-reliable Usenet ruckus, his "biographies are beyond laughable, and I can say that as one of his personal friends. --SavvyCat 05:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

ethnicity

Though I know "ethnicity" is a poorly defined word, I think most people would agree that "American" is a nationality, not an ethnicity, unless we're talking about someone who is Native American. If we don't have a reliable source for Alexandre's ethnicity, why don't we just put "unknown" in that line on the infobox? --Allen 05:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/r/a/Talk%7EBrandy_Alexandre_Archive1_2fc9.html"