Talk:Sarah X Dylan

Personal Information

She was a dancer at the Hawthorne Strip. She did work the day-shift.

Considering that this article is for a living person, I question whether or not some of the information which was currently added is appropriate. While the information may have been referenced on the show or vaguely referred to at times on the air, it is quite a different thing from posting it on a web page on a wiki for the world to track down.

Of specific concern, I note the reference to who she is currently dating. It should be enough to say that pseudonyms are used on the show to tastefully refer to people she may be seeing. Also, the use of her sister's full name, location, myspace page and employer. While it is reasonable to mention that she has a sister and perhaps her first name, the rest seems to take it a step too far. Both in terms of personal information and the fact that the article is about a notable media personality - not the individuals in her family.

In addition, I don't think it is necessary to state what part of the city she lives in. It's enough that she lives in Portland. I also find it a bit disconcerting that there are direct links to individual myspace blog postings and flickr photos. Just because they are on the internet doesn't necessarily make the material a candidate for inclusion in a wikipedia article. Especially for a living person.

Specifically, please take into consideration the section and subsections "Presumption In Favor Of Privacy" in the Wikipedia policy on Biographies of living persons which argues in favor of privacy with reference to marital status, information irrelevant to the notability of the subject (such as her sister's full name, location, myspace, employer and who she is dating).

It is disconcerting that in one paragraph, it is stated both that she is a person who values her privacy and then the same paragraph then presents several needlessly personal details and references - along with other elements in the article that follow suit.

Cordell (talk) 07:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

A few pieces of information, as mentioned above and aside from the privacy issue, do not meet the constraints of a biography of a living notable person. Specifically in that their details are not relative to the subject of the article or the subject's notoriety (for example, where her sister works). A few others are questionable on concern of privacy.

Before making any changes, I have reached out to the subject of the article and asked them if a few pieces of information in particular were okay with them. The presumption on personal details is one of favoring the side of privacy, but if the subject of the article is not concerned, then that should not be a problem to include them as they otherwise fit into the scope of living person biographies. However, the person did respond and also had some of the same concerns that I did.

I am therefore going to make a few edits or alterations on these pieces. I will try to retain the general bits of information offered but in a less detailed or private way. To whoever made these combined edits over time - please do not take offense. I and other wikipedians surely appreciate your contributions and I know your intentions are good and kind in nature.

Here are the edits I have made, for reference:

Trimmed reference to her sister by removing her last name, location, employer and link to her myspace page. Not really germain to the importance of the article and does not really stick with the spirit of the living biographies policy.

Reduced description of where the article's subject lives to "Portland" as anything more specific seems a little detailed and, to anyone other than listeners to her show, probably insignificant.

Removed references to person's individual blog entries on myspace. While the living person biography policy does state that linking to a person's site (including myspace) is reasonable, linking to individual specific blog entries that are clearly not intended for the entire world (yes, they could make them private, I know) is a little much. The references are not for significant elements of the article, anyway.

Removed smugmug photo for reference as per previous comments. I'm not sure that linking to a smattering of "personal-ish" photos around the internet is kosher for a quality wikipedia article and is definitely a possible concern for a living person. Especially since flickr and other sources of photos are not exactly the same as the subject's blog or myspace which are publicly discussed on the show and are part of the "collective knowledge". Note I have not removed the filckr photo references about the derby races. I do question linking to them as well, but can not muster the same certainty that I have about theo the other edits. Therefore, I'm leaving them alone.

Trimmed the discussion of referencing "significant others" by aliases. Comments such as "is dating an older man" certainly qualifies as titillating and sensational. Too much so for a biography on a living person. I believe restraint here is appropriate under both privacy and "marital status" portions of the living persons biography policy. Indeed, these elements are vaguely discussed on the radio show, but that is not the same as being included or intended for inclusion in a broad biographical article for all the world to see online. I think most of us would not appreciate detailed references to our significant others on the internet in such a way. I left explanation that "aliases" are often used to refer to people the subject may be dating as that is certainly relevant to some degree, but doesn't include the other descriptive commentary.

I hope my concerns and edits are understood and appreciated. No ill-will or offense is intended here and I am trying to adhere to the policy and its spirit as well as respecting the subject of the article (whom, as I indicated previously, I did indeed reach out to before redacting any information to be certain whether or not the person found any level of the information a little disconcerting).

Let's be conservative in changing any of this back and discuss it first if it is the intention of any other editors. Thank you. Cordell (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Muppet5150 - Please stop including the information you keep returning to this article. Please familiarize yourself with wikipedia policy for biographies of living persons. That the information is "first hand" is not relevant. In fact, "original research" is not accepted on Wikipedia. More importantly, wikipedia policy is a presumption of privacy. That means, RESPECT THE PRIVACY OF THE SUBJECT OF YOUR ARTICLE. Particularly when they are notable but not "generally known" such as the person this article is regarding. This can even relate to dates of birth which should ONLY be included with caution for living persons due identity theft concerns. ALSO, just because someone states something in a matter of public record does not make it appropriate for a wikipedia article. For example, you keep including personal information about the subject's sister. THIS IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE NOTABILITY OF THE ARTICLE'S SUBJECT. Where her sister works, what her last name is, etc -- IS NOT RELEVANT TO DYLAN'S NOTABILITY.

Most importantly, the wikipedia policy asks for consideration to be granted to the individuals who are the subject of a living article and the subject of THIS particular article has confirmed a concern for this information being available on wikipedia. A living person's DMV records are also a matter of public record; that doesn't give you license to include that in an article.

Not to mention, that your username is a combination of the name of the dog this article's subject is about AND the California code for 5150 involuntary psychiatric hold is a bit disconcerting. If you continue to revert the article so that it contains the redacted information, I will submit this article for an editing lock.

I have raised this issue in the Biographies of Living Persons Notice Board. DO NOT return the cited edits without further discussion. Cordell (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again, we find ourselves revisiting this issue of putting unnecessary personal information about a living person in this article. Let's refrain from putting people's privacy unnecessarily at risk as in keeping with the policies on Biographies of Living Persons, eh? Cordell (talk) 09:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The X in Sarah X Dylan

I know it's been discussed on the show. I can't remember the story or I'd add it myself.

• I think it was added for professional (acting/broadcasting/media) purposes only and might not appear on her actual birth certificate. Allissalli (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

hi my question it's about the last name, i know that bob dylan took his last name from dylan thomas and use it as last name wicht it's actually a given name, othe person like jakob dylan and jesse dylan have that last name because are son of bob dylan and a sarah dylan, bob's exwife, how this other sarah X dylan has that last name? actually another sarah dylan on a porn movie use the same name, i guest are artistic names, Freddy Ordóñez Araque, Caracas - Venezuela —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.241.227 (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.myspace.com/sarahxdylan

Also, http://www.myspace.com/sarahxdylan keeps being removed from the list of links -- myspace doesn't allow living persons' proper names to be used (even for parody, but esp for impersonation), so could someone verify with her that it's NOT her and that both she and myspace are allowing it to exist? Thanks. Allissalli (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the proper page is http://www.myspace.com/sarahdylan - without the 'x'. There's nothing one can really do to prevent impersonation on MySpace as the bureaucracy is ridiculous. Cordell (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability Deletion

I fail to see how there is a "lack of notability" for a personality who has been co-hosting and producing a popular formerly nationally syndicated four-hour-per-day CBS talk show for more than six years, co-hosted a show on a popular alternative rock station (KNRK) in one of the top markets and was formerly part of the morning CBS news broadcast team in one of the country's largest markets (KOIN).

You may as well be requesting that Rick Emerson and Rick Emerson Show articles be deleted for the same reason. Cordell (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And yet one of them is now a redlink... 98.210.221.74 (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! You have discovered the results of the myopic notability police! (Remember, no people are nearly as notable as documenting each and every individual pokemon that has ever existed!) Cordell (talk) 01:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)