Talk:Nigel McGuinness

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 the Sports and games work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
WikiProject Professional wrestling
Professional wrestling
Portal
Nigel McGuinness is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nigel McGuinness article.
Article policies

So.....what is his real name? Must be something really awful, since he apparently likes the name Nigel McGuinness better.

Sorry, I don't want to get banned for stating something that is a matter of public record, provided by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. I will say however how fucking ridiculous I think Wikipedia is for arbitrarily preventing such information from being posted.

TELL THE WIKITRUTH

....time to get the real men in to figure out this whole mess

Even if it's public record, what would it add to the article? My understanding is most wrestlers don't think fans knowing their real names is all that important because when they're greeted they will only get the persona they portray, not the real person playing the gimmick. It's annoying to them because unlike actors, they rarely leave their "gimmicks" at the shows. Even if you know Nigels real name, he's more Nigel NcGuiness then whatever his birth name is.

Then why don't we remove the birth names from Shane Douglas, Jimmy Jacobs, Alex Shelley, Chris Sabin, Roderick Strong, Rocky Romero, Christopher Daniels, Shawn Michaels...I could go on but I think you get the point.

If it was there choice to remove them, we should. My understanding, from reading one of the earlier discussions, is Nigel doesn't want his real name public. So no, I don't get the point. Nigel doesn't want it out, so why should people who have nothing to gain from knowing his real name be making a fuss about "the truth?" Those wretslers you have mentioned obviously haven't asked for it to be pulled down. So why fight Nigel on this? It's his name after all.

Don't be thick, I meant the point that there are an overabundance of wrestlers' real names on Wiki, especially with ring names that sound like real names. And since Wiki has capitulated to Nigel, what's to stop them from capitulating to anyone else who threatens to sue (and let's not kid ourselves, that's what happened here) based on what Wiki's posted about them?

As the person who handled the OTRS request, there was never a threat to sue. Simply a request that this matter be investigated. Had I found that Mr. McGuinness' real name was widely known and not generally private, I would have allowed it to remain. FCYTravis 16:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason that we can't just put his real name in and use the USPTO website as the referance since anybody can search the website and find his real name, it's the way we found out Samoa Joe's real name. This is something his fans would like to know and there is no reason not to include it just because the webmaster of his site complained. If he didn't want his real name to be available, then he shouldn't have trademarked his ring name (thus making his real name public record). TJ Spyke 05:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with TJ Spyke. This is censorship, pure and simple. McGuiness may not want his real name posted. I can understand that. I'm sure Richard Nixon would not want Watergate mentioned (were he alive), etc. An extreme example, but the point is the same. He is a public figure (by his own choice), his real name is a matter of public record, and it should be posted. This is an encyclopedia. Admin FCYTravis dropped the ball big time on this.Thedukeofno 11:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not censorship, it's policy. All ocntent should b everifiable by reference to independent reliable secondary sources. Looking up a patent and concluding that this is his real name is not acceptable, so if you want the name in you will need to find a reliable independent source for it. Not exactly a novel ide on Wikipedia, after all. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear user 24.193.0.95: You are removing my comments from an article's talk page. That's considered unacceptable behavior per the talk page guidelines (see WP:TPG), and I ask that you refrain from doing so. If you continue to do so, I will continue to revert, and I will block you. Also, you should get a user name and sign in when making edits; it will help with your credibility. Thedukeofno 07:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] I added {{reqphoto}}

I tagged the image for speedy deletion as a replaceable fair use iamge and added {{reqphoto}} to this talk page. --Iamunknown 22:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


You can use a pic from his website, I give permission. Webmutt.

Why does it not mention the biceps injury that will likely force him to relinquish the belt? It's pretty major news on every reliable 'insider' website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.17.141 (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real name

If there is a compelling reason not to have this guy's real name in the article, then it ought to be documented for the benefit of the community. It is not the job of a single administrator to unilaterally decide to censor something and then to provide no rationale for doing so. Claiming "OTRS" is a load of garbage. WP:CENSOR is a non-negotiable policy. This unilateral censorship action coming from an administrator who already has a documented history of making unilateral actions ignoring consensus is totally inappropriate - Wikipedia belongs to the community and not its administrators. If a compelling rationale isn't provided promptly, this matter will go to RfC and beyond. Reswobslc 15:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Editorial judgment, good taste and respect for privacy is not censorship. The article subject is not a major public figure and is known to the public exclusively by his stage name in connection with his performances. Given that there exists no compelling public interest in his real name, we have acceded to his request to exclude it from our biography of him. FCYTravis 22:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Who, exactly, is "we", and who is the judge of "compelling public interest"? It sounds like in this case, you really mean "I", not "we". As for "public interest", people are interested in details like this otherwise what's the point of having a biography in the first place? Despite that, I would probably give merit to sympathizing with the virtues you cite if you had sought the community's consensus first instead of acting unilaterally. Have you done so and I just failed to notice? Reswobslc 15:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

Requesting comment regarding whether or not a wrestler's real name and birthdate (or at least year of birth) should be in an article. In favor of having the name are the number of unique people who keep adding it, expecting that it's relevant biographical information. The single administrator who keeps removing it cites WP:OTRS which is understandably an important part of handling confidential communications with Wikipedia, but a public figure's real name and birth year is hardly confidential. The single administrator seems pretty defensive about this - the last person who added this real name got not a warning, but a week-long block (block log) with no apparent previous antagonism to merit it. I insist that the community either deserves a meaningful rationale for censoring this information, or the censorship should be stopped. This entire talk page deals with nothing but this single issue. Reswobslc 07:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a stimulating discussion (this entire page) and heaven knows, I don't want to create a NEW rabbit trail here, but: I've found there to be an excessive increase in Wikipedia Admin's high-handedness of-late. Anyone agree? Buddpaul (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Where is the reliable source that states the real name? As far as I can tell that is the major problem here. Guy (Help!) 14:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • That is available at USPTO.gov. I would provide a direct link, but it just says "session expired". Search for Nigel McGuinness, and it will come up as being a service mark belonging to an individual. User:FCYTravis insists something along the lines that just because the person owns the mark, there is a theoretical possibility that it's not really him, and draws the line of WP:OR to include the notion that the owner of the mark is the subject of the mark. From what I can tell, nobody buys that - everyone whining here knows Nigel is the person. If the concern were accuracy, I would totally agree with that call, but in this case, the accuracy isn't contentious or questionable. The person, through OTRS is indicating that he wants his name removed from Wikipedia, not that it is inaccurate. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not censored. The issue at hand really isn't the person's name, but rather, the precedent that it creates contrary to a well-established policy. I firmly believe admin User:FCYTravis is acting in good faith and being bold for the right reasons, but suspect that his choice to repeatedly ignore community consensus, block people who disagree with him, and evade addressing the real issue is ultimately detrimental to the project. If consensus is sought and goes Travis's way, then I would not object further - so far I just don't see that happening. Reswobslc (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
      • The source you cite plainly does not establish that the owner of the mark is the subject of the mark. Whether you or anybody else "buys" that is not relevant. No "consensus" can determine that a source says something which it clearly does not say. FCYTravis (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
        • If the owner was NOT the subject, then it would say "Attorney of Record" rather than "Individual Registrant". Do a USPTO search on Shane Douglas for an example. Besides, are you really trying to say that the person is probably not Nigel McGuinness? I don't think that was ever a point of contention. If the material in question was something genuinely contentious, then I understand the standard of proof is very high. But this is someone's factual biographical information, versus one complaint from his webmaster using OTRS to essentially say WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Reswobslc (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
          • What I'm saying is that you do not have a reliable source which clearly establishes 1. that the registrant is the subject and 2. his real name is widely known and used by other reliable sources. You can argue all day and night that a source says something which it doesn't, but that doesn't make it so.
          • In the cases of entertainers and performers using stage names who can demonstrate that their real names are not widely known or used by reliable sources, and who wish to keep their real name private, we generally consider such requests to be valid. FCYTravis (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • And WP:SYN; as has been pointed out above, the owner of the trademark need not be the individual himself (could be his lawyer for all we know). Unless we have independent reliable secondary sources, we don't say it. I'm also rather tired of WP:NOT#CENSORED being abused to justify inclusion of problematic material. The intent of that policy is to prevent bowdlerisation, not inclusion of disputed information. It's a good reaosn to have a picture of a penis in penis and an absurdly bad reason to include private information which the subject clearly does not want to publicise and for which we have no reliable independent secondary sources. I'm sure OWW will let you include the name, but Wikipedia is not OWW, we have much stricter content and sourcing rules than they do. All you've ever had to do is provide independent reliable secondary sources, not inferences drawn from your own research. Just that, nothing more. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The USPTO website makes it pretty clear it's him and not his attorney. They have a separate field, "Attorney of Record", to denote whether the person is him or his attorney. (Look up Shane Douglas for an example of where that is exactly the case.) This is not my own inference, this is simply following the guidelines provided by the source. Reswobslc (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • And there you have the crux of the issue - "pretty clear" is not an acceptable sourcing standard for the biography of a living person. It's "pretty clear" it's not an attorney. That still doesn't establish that it's the subject of the trademark - there is nothing which says the owner of a trademarked name must be the subject of that name. There is a field which establishes consent of the subject to have his name trademarked, but that also does nothing to establish who it is.
  • Moreover, the fact that you have to resort to conjecturing what public records filings might or might not mean, and that you have found not a single other potential reliable source for this information, clearly establishes that this person's real name is not widely used or publicized by other reliable sources. Thus it is perfectly acceptable and logical for us in this case to respect the article subject's wishes and refrain from publicizing something which is not already common knowledge. FCYTravis (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary protection

This article has been temporarily protected due to edit-warring unsourced, contentious personal information, per OTRS ticket#2006092210008209. FCYTravis (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the information is sourced and reliable. Just because S"Nigel"'s webmistress doesn't want his PUBLICALLY available name here (when it's already public info) doesn't mean it shouldn't be listed. The fact that his real name is public record and the consensus is to include it, there is NO reason to keep it out and fully protect the page like you did. This article will eventually have his real name included, it's just a matter of when. TJ Spyke 14:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category needs to be removed

{{editprotected}} The category "Category:World Champion professional wrestlers" needs to be removed. That category is for wrestlers who have won titles granted world title status by Pro Wrestling Illustrated, and Nigel has never done that. The full list of titles and wrestlers that qualify can be found here: PWI's list of wrestling World Heavyweight Title reigns. TJ Spyke 14:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I suggest the category ought to be renamed Category:Wrestlers who have held what Pro Wrestling Illustrated deems to be world titles, or something sufficiently less wordy. PWI's list of wrestling World Heavyweight Title reigns used to be List of Number of World Title Reigns, so that understandably became considerably more precise. If we are to be explicit about it on one page, let's be explicit about it elsewhere.

Also, what then of Category:World heavyweight wrestling championships? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

N Not done; I'm not convinced this is a reasonable criterion for inclusion in a category by this name. This should be discussed in a centralized location to evaluate this question. See Category talk:World Champion professional wrestlers. In any case, it can wait until after the issue it was protected for is over. —Random832 17:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London Dungeon / Thames Barrier (Modified wrist lock submission)

The Thames Barrier and the London Dungeon aren't the same move. The former sees Nigel wrap an opponent’s arm around his leg, fall backwards and pull on the wrist, leaving the other guy standing, bent at the waist, while Nigel is on his back. The latter, I believe, is like a camel clutch, only with an arm cradled behind the opponent's head instead of a chin cupped in both hands.

80.167.179.198 (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)