Talk:Courtney Simpson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
Pornography Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Updated Information re: Courtney Simpsons Retirment

After a two year career in the adult industry Courtney has since retired in September of 2006, left the agency that she was currently represented by, and left the industry in all aspects. “It was my decision to retire from the industry entirely in order to pursue a different path in my life. I was no longer happy in the adult industry and I think of my time in the adult industry as phase of my life that is completely in the past. It is now my time to move on from this short phase and begin the rest of my life with no looking back and absolutely no plans of returning. I met many wonderful people and friends during my short time here and I wish them all the best. I thank my fans for all of their support and in return I ask them to respect my privacy at this time as well as the privacy of those around me. This is what is really going on in my life and any other information is false heresay and/or negative rumors. Thank you.” —Preceding unsigned comment added byValleygirl123 11:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


Partially Quoted from the following source "http://famousipod.com/blog/blogs/blog_2006/archive/2007/07/04/X_porn_Star_Courtney_Simpson_confirms_Retirement.aspx" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayoutexas (talk • contribs) 00:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real name removal

The subject has sent email asking us to remove her name from the article, giving convincing verification of identity. We have discussed it offline among three experienced administrators: User:AnonEMouse, User:Tabercil, User:The Rambling Man and believe we should remove the name per her request, the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, and basic kindness. I'm going to delete these discussion sections so they do not show up on Google searches, but I will replace them with a link to them in the article talk page history. Please do not restore the real name without reading the discussion in the history, and discussing, preferably with the administrators named. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

She also asked if we could remove the image in the article for the same reason, and after discussion, I'm afraid we can't. The name is relatively hard to find, while her picture is prominent in every one of her videos. Her name could have been anything else without changing anything about her career, but if she had looked like Bella Abzug, that would have greatly affected her career. Her looks are a big part of her reason for notability and the image is a big part of the article, so we won't remove it, though we'll gladly replace it with a better one. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Adult film stars are public figures, and thus have no reasonable expectation of privacy. The fact that admins were even considering removing the image of the subject at her request is laughable enough. As for the subject's birthname, it's easy enough to find and verify just about anywhere online; the fact that the preeminent online encyclopedia would allow such an omission "per her request...and basic kindness," despite a great deal of source material to confirm said birthname sets a very dangerous precedent, and is in my opinion the wrong decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.249.65.151 (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and WP:BLP. Plus it's not a precedent. And how it's "dangerous" to anyone other than the subject should we reverse the decision is beyond me. The Rambling Man 22:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
To expand on what Rambling Man said: This is not "a precedent" as there are three other cases that I am aware of where the porn star's sourced real name was removed. The earliest of those cases that I am aware of is that of Brandy Alexandre, where Jimbo Wales himself stepped in and removed the name. It was from that act that the current policy of privacy of real names comes from. Believe me, if you can convince Jimbo of your logic being right and that their real names belong in the article, all the more power to you. Unless and until that day, the name removal stands. Tabercil 02:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I support this proposal, with one proviso. If the name becomes widely used in RS, I think we look daft by withholding it.

I also agree with the sentiments about the picture. I can understand why she'd want it removed (I assume it's not a very flattering shot) but its inclusion does no harm... and if the objection is on grounds of it being unflattering, that doesn't fall under BLP issues. And she can always email a better one to TRM, or try uploading it herself (if you're reading this Ms Simpson, good luck with the dreadfully user unfriendly process and the licensing policemen who'll no doubt come and slap impenetrable gobbledigook templates all over your talk page as soon as you try... you're better off asking TRM to do it for you) --Dweller 10:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It goes without saying that your proviso is true. If Jenna Massoli, Ron Hyatt or even Reginald Dwight were to write in and ask for their real names to be removed from their articles I'd fair say their request would be laughed at outright. Tabercil 13:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone explain how the 'Phoenix New Times' and 'Phoenix Business Journal' aren't considered RS according to 'The Rambling Man,' yet a blog by 'Blogger Bryan' on a website called 'Famous Ipod' constitutes RS for retirement info? There should be some semblance of objectivity with regard to source material IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.240.222.108 (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I was wondering when someone would bring that up. You'll recall I was the one who found the PBJ ref. Yes, I think they are somewhat reliable sources. But the real name isn't being deleted because we don't reliably know what it is, it's being deleted because:
  1. we can live without it in the article; we can write a good article without it, and
  2. it isn't a very important part of the subject's story, and
  3. the article subject says it is really hurting her.
I would like to think I proved the first part yesterday, when I expanded the article from this to this without stating the real name. I think the second part is clear from the sources: the AVN story and the AINews interview, the longest sources we have, are comprehensive and in depth and don't state the real name. The PNT and PBJ sources, which do, are one line long each, and give it as a throw-away comment. As for the third part, believe us, it is her, and she does say that. Trust me, if she didn't, we'd be all for having the name. But you see, we're not here to make the Wikipedia a site that hurts people on principle. (Jimbo Wales even said that explicitly once: "Wikipedia is not here to make people sad.") We're here to make the world's best, free, online encyclopedia, and, while I can't speak for everyone, I hope we're doing that out of an urge to help people, not hurt them. We each build the encyclopedia in different ways, but I hope it's clear that writing and expanding articles, like here is clearly better than just adding the two words of a name. Don't you?
And it is also a big deal to her that she is retired. The FamousIpod blog is a lame source, I say so right there, in the comment, and it would violate the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy; but it is there per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. It is there because it is important to the article that she has retired; and because she has personally said that it is important to her that the article say that she has retired; and it is there because it is the best, or rather, only, source that we can find, it's the one she herself pointed to. Believe me, I would much rather we have a better source for her retirement; I searched around, and the closest I could find was the AVN article about the other statement in that paragraph. The AVN a good enough source for most things, it's the main trade paper for the adult film industry, it is not self published, has separate editors and writers and everything. Unfortunately, that AVN article just doesn't say that she retired, just limited her work. If you can find a good source saying that she retired, we'll use it, and I personally will thank you profusely. If it's really good, I'll give you a barnstar. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the initial reason for the birthname deletion (per TRM) was that the sources didn't meet RS standards; after that rationale was debunked, others were devised. It seems like standards are being arbitrarily applied here, which is my objection. The inclusion of the birthname isn't intended to hurt on principle, however it is easily verifiable, and therefore its omission seems irrational (I also agree with the earlier stated premise that there isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy for public figures, and therefore inclusion of birthname wouldn't be intended to harm for the sake of harming, but rather to disseminate accurate info). Also, touching on what someone else said re: the Jenna Jameson/Ron Jeremy comparison, what constitutes "wide use" in RS? 3 sources? 5? 10? Again, to me the standard(s) applied seems rather arbitrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.72.116.210 (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but WP:BLP comes into effect. I'm not sure what your agenda is, in what sense does it "improve" the article to include her birthname? The work AnonEMouse has done in the past day has improved the article fivefold. The previous fifty odd edits related to her birthname. Perspective? The Rambling Man 22:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I personally don't see how WP:BLP (privacy of names) is applicable, since it specifies pertinence to private individuals, and I believe it's been established that porn stars are public figures. And I don't have an 'agenda' aside from improving the article (and yes, I agree that AnonEMouse did a great deal to improve said article, so kudos to him/her), I just don't see how the inclusion of the birthname doesn't improve the article, at least any less so than including Jenna Massoli on the Jenna Jameson entry, for example. And if the standard for including the birthname of a Jenna Jameson is publication by the NYT, and publication by the PNT and PBJ don't meet this standard, then where is the line drawn? What constitutes a household name? It's the subjectivity of it all and the lack of a definitive standard that puzzles me. And if the subject's birthname doesn't improve the article, then what does the DOB, hometown, etc. do to improve the article, at least moreso than the inclusion of the birthname? Her birthname is a known quantity, and can be found in the 2 sources I mentioned earlier (PNT/PBJ), as well as IMDB (I know, I know, can be user edited, not RS), Youtube (again, not RS), countless blogs, and even message board postings by the subject herself. While the aforementioned sources alone may not be CNN/NYT calibre, when you add them all up, the omission by WP seems rather absurd to me. I've said my piece and it's clear that some of the admins here disagree, which is fine, I just wanted to articulate my rationale, instead of having some think that there's an 'agenda' or ulterior motive at work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.240.222.108 (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
To jump in here: Jenna Jameson and Ron Jeremy are household names (for lack of a better term). Frankly, Ms. Simpson isn't. Now, if a reputable, wide-spread news outlet like CNN, New York Times, or TIME Magazine published her name, then you'd definitely have a point for inclusion. As it stands right now, Simpson hasn't garnered national attention like Elton John, Jenna Jameson or Ron Jeremy. So, really, you're comparing apples to oranges here. Also, given that the subject of the article asked for that piece of information to be omitted, and given that she is by no means as popular as the more prominent examples, it is legally wise to comply with that request, since its inclusion doesn't add or detract anything away from the article. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 22:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I fixed the link to the Jimbo quote a bit. This isn't quite the situation described in Jimbo's but I think it's quite close. http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2006-December/058659.html Please do read that message. I hope that what we did here comes quite close to what is described there. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)