Talk:Star Wars Kid/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Continued media presence

For what it's worth — and possibly not a whole lot — SWK is briefly mentioned in today's Globe and Mail (12 January 2010) in the article, "California's gay-marriage showdown begins" by Siri Agrell. Agrell asks, "Could a court case go viral, a la Star Wars Kid [...]?" Considering this is a newspaper of record written for a general audience (and not a tech/Internet blog), it strikes me as remarkable longevity for a meme which peaked in popularity some seven years ago. Albrecht (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

wolframalpha

WolframAlpha lists him as a "memeticist", probably not worthy of inclusion into the article though. --Rajah (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Notable for one event?

If this person is truly only notable for one event, WP:BLP1E, then why isn't this article DELETED? JBsupreme (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it's not, strictly speaking, a biographical article. When a person is notable for one event, we're to create an article on the event, or in this case, the meme. -- Vary | (Talk) 19:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I really could care less if this article was deleted. That said, however, I do think it is kind of silly the arguments being made above regarding the inclusion/exclusion of his real name. On both sides. JBsupreme (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that this should be deleted, though on slightly different reasoning. The decision on which internet memes are given their own pages and which are not seems to be totally arbitrary. Why does this kid's meme get a page while Afro Ninja and Elizabeth Lambert do not? Basically, it is because the people who care enough to fight articles deletion processes tend to be relatively likeminded people who make decisions on what they believe is cool/notable rather than what is objectively notable. That being said, this should simply be an entry on the List of Internet phenomena and Viral video pages, as should all internet/YouTube video memes, because virtually all memes are NOT notable to people outside the socioeconomic/cultural sphere that Wikipedia's user-administrators are part of (a sphere that represents only a fraction of the English-speaking population of the world). Niremetal (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen this video on the mainstream news. Never saw Afro Ninja on the news. I haven't even heard of Elizabeth Lambert. Though it's hard to prove, I believe the SWK is much more significant and well known. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the existence of this article victimizing the person, just like listing his name? The mentions of the Star Wars Kid are, for the most part, one-off jokes in a show where the direction of the show is not relevant to the reference. Due to the fact that the person in question is a private individual, and the fact that the article is still about the person - Star Wars Kid is a nickname for the person, it is not an event. The fact that it only covers him as the Star Wars Kid means nothing. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The kid did not direct the popularization of the meme. Thus the kid is distinct from the meme and we can distinguish between them when we write the article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The article still greatly lacks any real assertion that this is anything more than "everyday meme". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The number of mainstream sources that cover this meme establish notability, and that it is not "everday." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen several memes deemed to not be notable that have more mainstream sources than this. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the most popular internet meme of all time. You seriously don't think it is notable?19:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.141.39 (talk)

Not by the rules that we have set up for Internet memes, no. The tone of the title clearly shows that it's talking about the person - the name of the video, Star Wars Kid, is referring to the person. Meaning, this article is about the man known as "Star Wars Kid" on the Internet, not the video of the person. It consistently describes the person in the video and how he has had to deal with it. Under current rules of BLP, the article certainly fails. Being a really, really funny video does not mean it's important. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely semiprotected

As we are being hit again, and again, .... and again, .... by drive-by IP editors adding the name, I have indefinitely semiprotected the article. The BLP concerns raised are significant, per talk page discussions, etc.

Autoconfirmed editors are welcome to continue editing, of course.

IP editors may make change suggestions here on the talk page. Please do review the discussions about the real name inclusions in the talk page history, though. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look at why editors are doing this. The-person-who-wikipedia-won't-name has "made headlines again, this time for his appointment as the new president of the Patrimoine Trois-Rivières conservation society in Quebec."[1]. Of course, using wikithink, we know not to mention this pertinent fact, because there's no article about the person, only what the person did, and of course the person becoming independently famous is no reason for them to have a Wikipedia article. 192.18.1.36 (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What the hell is the "Patrimoine Trois-Rivières conservation society in Quebec"? Why is becoming president of this non-notable organization notable? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look up wikipedia and find out? It's the main conservation society of the city of Trois-Rivières. What makes you think it's non-notable? 192.18.1.36 (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Gee kid, maybe you should take a look at URL in your browser. The first two letters are "en" meaning you're on English Wikipedia. Searching for "Patrimoine Trois-Rivières" produces no results here. Can you find any other presidents of that particular society on Wikipedia? Having an article in one language but not in another usually implies that a topic is right on the edge of notability, in which case an smaller subtopic would not be notable. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And sometimes it merely implies that the interest in and sources supporting an article are primarily in a certain language. Sources in French are perfectly acceptable to support notability for an English article, they're just harder to access by the en.wiki userbase. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, and it is exactly that disinterest that implies where it stands regarding notability. The smaller the group interested, the less notable. French Wikipedia is much smaller than English Wikipedia. I'm not saying the organization is not at all notable. I'm saying it's not very notable. And per WP:Overcategorization its president's notability is not established. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, but that's fine since the real question is about He Who Shall Not Be Named, and I do agree that he still fails WP:GNG regardless of the conservation society's notability. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

With which part do you disagree? I thought that was a pretty standard interpretation of policy. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

First off, don't be jerks. Calling people kids on the Internet is really, really dumb. And I think that when he said he disagrees, he was speaking of the notability of the society. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Kid is more offensive than jerk? That's news to me. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the golden rule is that if you don't want to be called a jerk, don't act like one. You don't have an expectation that you should be allowed to take offense to anything if you make an obviously insulting statement. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the insultingly condescending remark immediately before mine, kid. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Condescending? After you vulgarly asked what something was, implying that before even knowing what it was you assumed a lack in notability, he suggested you use Wikipedia. You've definitely been the most condescending person here, and made the original condescending comment in the first place. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol, see the comment preceding that one. Perhaps you should read the entire discussion before jumping in and adding your two ignorant cents. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, see, having read every line and noticing that none of the posts were condescending besides yours, I think I'm pretty well-educated. I think you ought to settle down and stop being offended over being offensive. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Subsection

FYI, [[<real name redacted>|He Who Shall Not Be Named]]'s article has been given content instead of just the redirect to here, so those who have considered the subject in detail may want to provide input over thataway too. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Crap. This is circular. The only reason that he and the organisation have received any coverage in reliable sources is because of his previous notieriety. If he hadn't been the SWK, neither his appointment nor the organisation itself would have been noticed - a small local conservation society just doesn't cut it - neither have independent notability, it's all inherited. AFD both. Exxolon (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll tentatively disagree about the conservation society given the apparently well-sourced 30 KB article at fr:Patrimoine de Trois-Rivières, but I agree about the circular inherited notability problem with the other one. On the other hand the editor who made the change may have a point that it's no longer a WP:BLP1E issue because fame begets fame begets notability (just look at Paris Hilton), which is why I posted here for more input from those who have a better grasp on the situation. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually the article on French wikipedia is about a different topic, the historical heritage of the region of Trois-Rivières (Patrimoine de Trois-Rivières), not the society (Patrimoine Trois-Rivières). The society (using its old name "Société de conservation et d'animation du patrimoine de Trois-Rivières") is one of 14 other historical societies listed, not one of which appears to have its own article. --Slp1 (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Aha, hooray for a translator. In that case, out with both of them pending a response to Exxolon's question to Georgewilliamherbert. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

So what now is stopping us adding the name?

The topic "Star Wars Kid" is notable, no question. And no question when he was a "kid" (under 18), BLP would prevent us giving his name under questionable sources.

But now we have confirmed sources, with this person now at "young 20s" ([2]) that has positively affirmed the person's identity in a reliable source ([3]) and in a manner that is non-negative (the issue being that in the announcement of this person being named president of a non-notable organization, there was a clear link to being the SWK at the time too). I've also noted, as of yesterday, started a page again for the person. So this person should be mentioned here (notability doesn't limit content) now that the BLP issue has passed - he's not a minor and in fact had the connection made in the announcement. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

A couple of corrections: BLP applies to all people, not just minors. And he made no connection to his past when he was presented, in a local Quebec newspaper "Le Nouvelliste (Quebec)," as the new president of the area's conservation society. In fact, the paper says that he politely refused to talk about it when his past was alluded to at the press conference, saying that he preferred to draw a veil over the past and to focus the present and the future. --Slp1 (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue was never the reliability of the sources. The issue is and always has been WP:BLP1E. The only question now is whether or not his notability is established outside of the meme, and I still do not believe it is. Is this organization any more notable than a college whose school presidents and deans are not worthy of articles? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

BLP1E shouldn't be applying. First, I agree that he's non-notable because of the reported position today. But, the meme is notable, and as extension of a meme, inclusion of who it was and where they are today is seems likely completely reasonable inclusion barring all other issues. In this case the primary issue is BLP directly (not BLP1E), particularly when as a minor. While people had made the connection back then, it made sense that we, like most other reputable news outlets, chose not to under the issue of defamation (particularly for a minor) for BLP. But, the question becomes: now with the name well established in search engines through reliable sources (eg it is not some underground group revealing difficult-to-find info) and that that person is now an adult and the "harm" that can befall him is significantly negligible now (again, stating his name doesn't change what's out there, and he's not likely facing the same ridicule he had as a teenage), it make no sense not to include the person's name, and how he's established himself as part of the content on the meme of the 'Star Wars Kid'; it is a curiosity, not a stigma. And yes I've read the FAQs above and agree - 5 years ago - that they made sense, but not today. --MASEM (t) 23:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that BLP1E shouldn't apply not because it doesn't apply now, but because it should not have applied in the first place. I believe that that position has been rather firmly and consistently opposed.

There was never any question as to the factual accuracy of the name, and whether reliable sources could be found. Any idiot with Google access could have established that at any time. Our initial human dignity ruling, followed by the official BLP1E policy, were the justifications to not include material which we all agreed was correct and verifiable.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what I mean. I agree that then and now, the person who is the SWK has no notability; the notability is of the meme itself. As part of the meme, however, I would expect the identity of the person involved to be included to make this article comprehensive, unless it was a serious BLP issue. Then, it was; today, it's decidedly less so because of him being an adult and the court issues long since settled. I don't question the rationale for exclusion then, but do wonder if we're being overly cautious here now. --MASEM (t) 23:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The court issues have long been settled. This was never the reason for exclusion. Nothing has changed. His name stays out. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrimoine Trois-Rivières

Comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrimoine Trois-Rivières would be appreciated. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to restore <redacted due to BLP> to its status as a redirect once the above AFD is closed as delete. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The names of the folks who spread this

While it's certainly verifiable, I don't see that including the names of the people who spread the video around adds much to the article, and there are obvious BLP concerns for doing so, since the article does not exactly portray them in a flattering light. Accordingly, I've deleted them; please do not re-insert them unless a consensus to do so develops. Steve Smith (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That's reasonable - I'm pretty sure they were minors at the time as an additional incentive to keep their names out. Exxolon (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why their names should not be added. They were part of a newsworthy event and their participation in the chain of events is verifiable. They were minors and their parents were named in the lawsuit, however there was not a publication ban on the details of the lawsuit (the Statement of Claim identifies all the parties involved, and contains lengthy Internet chat details). Also because it was a civil case, their identities, to the best of my understanding, are not protected by the Canadian Youth Criminal Justice Act. Honestly I don't have time to really dig into this with any precedences on Wikipedia, but I think that further discussion is warranted. --Yankees76 ^Talk 13:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The archies of this page are full of further discussion and honestly, we're all getting real tired of it. On Wikipedia, WP:BLP trumps all, as a violation of that policy could potentially get us sued. As a result, WP:BLP1E is the commanding policy on this page. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The archives talk more about ethics than any specific BLP violation and lawsuit threat, which at this point would have to be extremely low considering how widely covered this story was and still is. The BLP argument is expected, as it's the main scare tactic used by editors to exclude material in biographies. "We'll get sued!!" For what? Reproducing a name that national newspapers and court documents have already covered and printed? The kid did an interview where he asked for an Ipod for Pete's sake. Has there been any contact or quotes in the press where he asks that his name in connection with this video be censored? And if we add the name and he wants us to remove it, he can contact our OTRS system - at least then we'd know for sure that the subject of the article has an issue with us putting his name in it.

The ethics argument barely makes sense either. For years Wikipedia pointed out that JD Salinger lived in Cornish, New Hampshire, when it was abundantly clear he wanted his privacy and did not want to be bothered at his home (his publisher refused to give his address or contact info) But we didn't censor that. In fact his article had links to websites that discussed details on how exactly how to find his house. Did we overlook ethics because Salinger was a rich old man? If Salinger didn't want to be harassed, why did we print the town where he lived? Because hundreds of other sources printed it. We simply printed truthful material that was backed by a large number of reliable sources. Salinger lived in Cornish, and if people wanted to trespass and harass him, that was not for us to encourage or discourage. Google or any other search engine could provide any of the information that might have been censored from Wikipedia. My point is, it's not up to us to decide what is ethical and what isn't - this is an encyclopedia - the "sum of all human knowledge". Provided we don't print gossip, give the article any undue weight, or make up facts, why should we omit any material that is attributed to a reliable, published source? The kids name is <real name redacted>. Did I make that up? No. Is it in big bold letters at the top of the article and mention 50 times throughout? No. Are there published and reliable sources where anyone can verify this fact? Yes, there is. Probably numbering in the hundreds if not more. WP:BLP says we need to avoid victimizing individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Are we participating in or prolonging the victimization by printing his name? That's really the only thing we need to come to a consensus on. If we are and it's the primary reason for censoring his name, we should delete the article entirely or remove all references to this being an act that caused the person embarrassment in the first place and the lawsuit that followed. Or we could simply merge that material into the Cyber-bullying article. Just like pole vaulter Allison Stokke, who like SWK achieved massive and unwanted internet fame, and was the subject of national newspaper coverage, doesn't have an article, neither is Star Wars Kid notable enough for a stand alone article as a meme. If we're not (he's a grown man, a law student and public figure now), we should present his identity objectively and quit ignoring the elephant in the room.

You guys may be growing tired of defending the exclusion of his name, but let's face it - this will probably never go away and appears to be about as popular a debate as the diacritic debate in English Wikipedia (and we're about as close to a real consensus). I wasn't even interested in this article until I noticed that the identity of the meme was missing right away. I would bet that we've exposed his name to more people by deliberately excluding it.

Wikipedia doesn't operate in a vacuum and ultimately the citations we use not only have the video creators/defendants names and high school, but the name of the meme himself, which makes our "ethical" censorship of his name in this article look incomplete, which is just going to continue to prompt discussion by new editors to the article, and further stimulate debate. Yes, I know these are arguments that have all been presented before, but to someone with a fresh look at this situation, the exclusion of his name and the names of the other individuals from the article is very bizarre and overly conservative. That's my rant, as I'd bet the farm no consensus will ever be reached on this, so I don't expect rebuttals or replies as it's all been covered. But you never know, maybe I brought up a point someone missed. Thanks for reading. --Yankees76 ^Talk 20:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate this with you. I am not the only editor watching this page to make sure that the consensus that has been tested at least 5 times regarding the kid's name is enforced. About a week ago an WP:AFD regarding the kid's name closed and got two articles deleted. The consensus has not shifted in the years since the meme came out. I don't think there's anything left but mush for you to hit in this horse's carcass. Let's let it rest, hmm? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agreed with the AFDs, two articles for this guy can't exist as neither is notable enough for a standalone article without the other, and the society for which he is the president is not notable at all. Unless <real name redacted>'s biography uses extensive Cyberbullying sources/case studies (if they even exist). I've said all I want on it - again, thanks for reading - it's boring I'm sure, as you've probably heard it ad nauseam. It was a new article I stumbled onto and like many others took up the mantle for one side or the other. Hopefully this kid will do something that will make him notable enought to be in here for something other than a stolen video. In the meantime, maybe I'll get Stokke's article done or some other internet personality. --Yankees76 ^Talk 21:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Note - I've removed all mentions of his real name from this talkpage. BLP applies to all pages on the site. Exxolon (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If I recall, Google no longer crawls talk pages. Same probably goes for other search engines. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not about Google - it's to avoid, even tangentially, tying his real life identity to the meme. Exxolon (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well gee, you better go delete those two AFD discussions we just had too then :p *rolls eyes* AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

And the sources that are used to create the article too...--Yankees76 ^Talk 21:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've actually edited at least some of the discussions to omit the real name, it can still be found in the history if required. The sources argument is addressed in the FAQ. Exxolon (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's found in the history what's the point in going so far as to remove them from links used in the discussion above? This sort of over zealousness is beyond description - I mean really, removing his first name from the URL of a link? And the FAQ says nothing - a compromise between WP:V and WP:BLP. We want our cake and we want to eat it too. We want our article without his real name, but because the only thing that makes this guy notable is his real name and the effect his fame had on him (hence the news coverage), we'll allow it in sources used to create the article. --Yankees76 ^Talk 22:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole point is the guy isn't notable, the meme is. In order to document the notability of the meme by necessity we have to rely on references that may give his real name, however that doesn't give us justification to do the same. My actions might seem over-zealous to you but WP:BLP is a "brightline" policy - it must be enforced rigorously. Until the consensus is that using his name is not a BLP violation, we must do everything practically possible to avoid tying his real life identity to the meme he inadvertently created, even to the point of cutting his real name out of links and closed discussions. Exxolon (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that neither the guy nor the meme is notable on it's own. The meme has an article because the guy had his video stolen and uploaded and viewed millions of times, which in itself is not notable - however his parents sued those who did it, which made it notable. If the guy had not sued his classmates and made the meme a high profile instance of cyber bullying, Star Wars Kid would be another Afro Ninja or Heineken Looter Guy - as internet phenomena without real people attached to them often do not appear in reliable sources for articles to be created for them in the first place (there is nothing particularly notable about a video of a kid swinging a golf ball retriever like a light saber that would cause any press coverage otherwise). The notability of Star Wars Kid is intricately tied in with the guy and the effect the meme had on him - without which there would be no reason to create an article on the meme (which is why every single reliable source used to create this article mentions his real name). This is why I brought up the issue higher up on the talk page - what happens when the "guy" becomes notable - if he runs for political office or since he's in law school does a high profile case? Are we going to ignore the meme? Will both articles exist at the same time or do we merge them? Or will we finally come to our senses and realize that adding his name to this article or tying SWK in with his own bio is probably no longer prolonging the victimization of the "guy" more than it already has? (yes, I thought the dead horse could use a few more whacks for good measure). --Yankees76 ^Talk 13:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If he becomes independently notable for reasons outside the meme I imagine the issue will be revisited and a new consensus will emerge. For the time being we're going to show compassion, "do no harm" and leave his name out - this guy has suffered enough - he ended up in a psychiatric hospital and we're not operating in some kind of intellectual ivory tower - our actions can have real consequences for people in the real world - we have to conduct ourselves accordingly. Exxolon (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

His name comes up in search engines, why nothing can be done

Because the name is literally all over the internet approximately 29,000 times, tied to the phrase Star Wars Kid. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop it coming up on this article in searches because of Wikipedia's own SEO, unless you exclude this article from SEA with no indexing or robots.txt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.86.33 (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to nominate the article for deletion (which would be futile, I have no doubt). Incidentally what is "SEA"? I presume you do not mean "sea", an expanse of salty water? I can just about guess that, by SEO, you mean "Search engine optimization", but please bear in mind that this is still the English encyclopedia, not the encyclopedia for spouting random bits of alphabet. --TS 22:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are pointlessly rude and belligerent, no? It was a typo of SEO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.86.33 (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if it sounds rude, but my complaint isn't pointless. It's that if you use English instead of odd bits of alphabet cobbled together it's more likely that you will be understood. --TS 14:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL. (That means that I am "laughing out loud".) JBsupreme (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It was rude and pointless. Not only that, but you refused to accept it. Well done. Arrogance at its best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.159.250 (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The question, 'what does "SEA" stand for', was not intended rhetorically. The meaning of the head posting of this section, therefore, remains opaque, which probably explains why it has degenerated into a general moan about the rudeness of people who don't understand it. --TS 11:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

'In Popular Culture' section

This got removed, but it's essential to show how it's a *real* meme via illustration of where it's made it into popular culture. Refs are available, they just need putting in. Oh, wait. Little grape (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think your point is certainly arguable. But we'd need proper sourcing, and not just this "I watched TV once and I saw this program and I think it was about the subject of this article" stuff. The section had been tagged for months, so if somebody was going to find secondary sources identifying these popular culture items as related to this meme, they'd had plenty of time in which to do it. --TS 20:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Not difficult to find the sources; have put a couple in for now. Little grape (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing appears to be disabled on the main article - I just want to add another Popular Culture reference. Weird Al - White & Nerdy music video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9qYF9DZPdw) time 1:23. Weird Al reproduces a few frames of the Star Wars Kid video. Pedorro (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Add CYBERSTALKING/CYBERBULLYING IN SEE ALSO PLEASE

Add CYBERSTALKING/CYBERBULLYING IN SEE ALSO PLEASE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.83.95.177 (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Just a side note (I have no idea how to edit these things really) But he guest stars in Tony Hawk Underground 2. On the Boston stage there are two buildings the skater can get into. one has him in a chair (click feel the power and he goes off) the other a guy with a goat...(don't know, don't care to) - Hope that helps, delete if it does not. _D. Fleshman Anderson, SC, USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.98.16 (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Star Wars kid now curating a military exhibition

The kid is now grown up and curating a military exhibition on the botched U.S. invasion of Quebec: http://www.lhebdojournal.com/Culture/Activites-culturelles/2012-06-14/article-3008460/Trois-Rivieres-et-linvasion-americaine/1 (it's in French). - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

This raises a curious dichotomy. If this article is a biography (i.e. BLP), then it should include the above detail, otherwise it is not a biography, i.e. an article about a person, but rather an article about a phenomenon. (Oh, the curious logical twists and leaps editors go through to find justification for whatever they want to do or be done, at the exclusion of all other twists and leaps!) - User:KeithTyler 01:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.132.175.177 (talk)