Talk:Désirée Cousteau

message: ::::::Forgive me, but your suggestion that you may take it to ANI if the name is removed must be trumped by my suggestion that if the name is returned to the article, then this will be taken to the BLP noticeboard.  Status quo rules do not apply to BLP articles.  If something has been done wrong for four days or four years, that does not mean it should not be righted. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's going around the point. It is your and some others' OPINION the passage in question should not b there. I — a responsible editor for many years — and some others on this page disagree with that OPINION. You hold your opinion very strongly, and for you to simply declare that YOUR opinion is correct preempts this RrC. I've contacted an admin. Please let the ADMIN make the call. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Over time, I have made several minor edits to the article without even caring what names were listed.  It was only with the start of this discussion that I saw that other editors (at least two at first) consider the usage of the other name to be a contentious BLP violation.  I'm just here to support that opinion.  If you are so experienced (and I know you are nearly twice as experienced as I am) that makes it so much more difficult to understand why you would fly slap! against policy??? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 18:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  As for "going around the point", please respond that you will comply with policy and let the material stay out of the article for now.  This discussion will probably be held up until you do this. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 19:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

text: If the reflist is returned, this will have to be reported to the BLP noticeboard – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. Policy is to keep the status quo. This is no egregious claim: It's a pertinent, factual Associated Press statement. Putting an exclamation-point image does not make your claim anything but your OPINION. My and others opinion is not only is this not harmful, it is an absolutely standard, non-controversial statement that a major news agency reported nationally based on [REDACTED]. It is incredible to me that simply because some POV censors have an issue with adult-film stars and think somehow they should be ashamed of themselves is paternalistic and presumptuous. The only fair thing is to leave it out of either of our hands and let an admin decide about this passage in the interim. I've asked one to do so. Please don't substitute your POV for an admin's judgment; whichever way and admin does it, we both need to accept.  --Tenebrae (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't opinion, this is policy per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. This was already explained after you re-added the material.  "Do no harm" is not "Keep the material in the article while discussing".__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is opinion that an Associated Press report of an arrest that occurred during one's professional duties is somehow questionable or not BLP-compliant. If an AP report of an arrest that occurred during one's professional duties is not BLP-compliant, we'll have to change half of Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is this RfC's place to discuss opinions, yours and mine.  It not our place to go against policy while we are doing it.  Contentious material should be removed while this discussion is ongoing.  THAT is policy.  You may be subject to negative actions if you persist in going against policy. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 18:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Some may be almost certain that it is her "legal" name; others may not be so certain.  Even if it is her legal name, it cannot yet be determined from the newspaper article whether the name used is Desireé Cousteau's maiden name or married name.  That kind of uncertainty tells me that the other name should not be used. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 16:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the other name adds any context that would override the BLP policy's presumption of privacy for someone who is not generally well known, and who has always intentionally concealed having worked in an occupation in which pseudonymity is normal. ..Overagainst (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit header 

message: There is a NSFW website called DesireeCousteau.com, but closer investigation shows this is a commercial site run by something called alternately the Desiree Cousteau Official Fan Club and (scroll down) the  Desiree Cousteau Online Movie Fan Club. It might or might not be owned by her. --Tenebrae (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an acceptable source.Overagainst (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Fan site? Commercial site?

message: Do we seriously need to have an RfC about this RfC, over whether it's appropriate or even allowed to change the RfC question/header to stack the deck one way or the other, or sabotage a question one doesn't like? First, admins don't need to be told how to do their jobs. Second, you can make whatever point you want to make as part of the discussion itself. Changing the RfC question/header in order to try to skew the result in your favor is unconscionable. If you can't make a valid point as part of the discussion and need to resort to such tactics, what does that say about the validity of your point? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Meta RfC?

message: One is reminded of the utterance of Jack Nicholson's character' in a A Few Good Men.  This entry  is no longer worth anything, let alone "very little". The idea that a decision would be made by six "editors" versus three.... Absurdity! Please drop the pretensions.William (The Bill) Blackstone (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, since you've engaged in censorship, your lack of cleaning up the article is yet another level of absurdity. Why do you have her as a LIVING PERSON? Why is she listed as someone BORN IN THE 1950s? Why are there references on this page to the state of Georgia? Since you've decided to engage in MiniTru activities, open the memory hole all the way.William (The Bill) Blackstone (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Censorship inherent in quashing the actress's name, or Please drop pretensions to being an encyclopaedia

message: If an article on Wikipedia willfully refuses to use a subject's birth name, what is the point of listing a site, either as a reference or an external link, to a web page that includes the exact information that the article is quashing? Even the IAFD lists her real name (though not noted as such), and the IMDb specifically notes not only her birth name, but a year and place of that birth.  In fewer words, if you're linking to it, there's no reason not to include it, and if the linking is in violation of a Wikipedia policy, then I question the inclusion of the links. Absurdist1968 (talk) 05:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pulling the punch