Talk:Star Wars Kid

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

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

Full name legalities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argument to Rename Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irrelevant

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

Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What was the result of the legal preceedings?

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

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

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

Is he all right?

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

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

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

Links to the videos

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

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

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

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

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

The Truth?

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

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

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

Quebec law

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

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

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