This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Charlie Hebdo printed a cartoon that Muslin extremists wanted UN-published. The killing of innocent people over a cartoon gave more publicity to the cartoon than ever before. The opposite of what the extremist wanted. I submit this for a listing in "Streisand effect".-- Mark v1.0 ( talk) 21:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
For proof of the opposite of suppression occurred , with the effort to suppress ( the intent of the killing) "Five million copies of the edition were printed, compared with the usual 60,000. " http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/charlie-hebdo-montrealers-line-up-for-post-attack-edition-1.2912489 -- Mark v1.0 ( talk) 22:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I support Mark's original proposal that the Charlie Hebdo shooting should be added to the article, for the following simple reason. The Streisand Effect is an evidently notable, but it is a language term defined by growing and changing usage, rather than defined and set in stone by scholarly articles. Indeed, I haven't been able to find any scholarly articles that defines it, as distinct from uses it, just as newspapers and bloggers use it.
When examining published examples of usage of the SE, we see it's original usage was re something no-one would have bothered with except for the SE, expanded to takedown notices of content that was already getting some viewing, through to security agencies attempting to suppress individual pages on wp, thru to govts trying to suppress entire websites, and now to gunmen trying to suppress cartoons. The actors started with lawyers, then expanded to security agencies, govts, and now gunmen. The relevant targeted media started with individual photos, but has expanded info about a person, whole websites, shirts, and now cartoons.
The original creation of the term "the SE" was by a blogger on his own website, and the most authoritative sources for wp's SE article are newspapers. So if the sources that use the SE when covering the Charlie Hebdo shooting are not considered adequate, then none of the sources for the entire wp SE article are adequate, so by that argument the entire wp SE article should be removed, which I think is clearly nonsensical.
Re the various objections to Mark's original proposal:
Re sources for published usage of SE re Hebdo, there are about 5 in fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effet_Streisand - the sources in fr.wp are about par with other sources in the en.wp article. fwiw, I think French editors deserve a bit of cred when judging whether SE applies to Hebdo. I also noticed a Huffington Post article re SE and Hebdo, and HP meets en.wp sources policy for this sort of thing.
btw, I created a special wp account to get this reverted, because I wanted tight anonymity. (And no, I am not Mark - never heard of him before.) I suspect a reason we have had Mark's contribution reverted for so long is because folk are reluctant to say anything about hebdo. Or perhaps the blood-red colours of TheRedPenOfDoom cause other WPians to abandon all hope of calm and reasoned discussion. Or perhaps WP contributors can no longer be bothered to fight those who slash and burn. RedPen, could you please demonstrate magnanimity and revert Mark's version back in. Or could someone else with more than 10 edits put Mark's version back in, and/or copy a translation from fr.wp along with its citations?
TheGreenPenOfHope 06:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Our article should contain enough examples of the phenomenon to make it clear, but at the moment it seems to be turning into a bit of a coat rack. Are all of these examples needed, and particularly do we need a list of them which will inevitably grow to include many instantly forgettable examples? Wouldn't it be better to use a few choice examples in the discussion of the phenomenon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway ( talk • contribs)
Part of the issue may also be that as the phrase is moving into wider use, it is simply being used as a more flowery replacement for "unintended consequences" that involve media coverage rather than the more specific parameters of its original coinage and usage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it'd improve the article and cut down on the coatracking to rewrite the example section as prose - a few paragraphs that group and explore the different contexts of the Streisand effect ("celebrities", "government", "corporate" and "members of public"?) using two or three strong examples to illustrate each. The current mostly-chronological bulleted list is ideal for breaking news coatracking, but doesn't seem particularly readable. -- McGeddon ( talk) 17:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and split the "Selected examples" into three simple sections ("In politics", "By businesses" and "By individuals"), which I can't see involves any WP:OR. Next step might be to restructure the paragraphs in order of significance, rather than chronologically (which seems meaningless, as the Streisand effect isn't something that's changed over time). -- McGeddon ( talk) 09:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The category was deleted following Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_12#Category:Streisand_effect, even through there were 7 keep votes and 6 (inc. nominators') delete votes. Ping User:Cirt: should we ask for WP:REFUND or such? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone seen any sources (I guess a newspaper columnist somewhere) mention this about Indiana's (infamous?) 2015 Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed by Gov. Pence? Jimw338 ( talk) 18:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
These two hashtags typify the Streisand Effect. It would make a great addition to the wiki. "The hashtag #SueMeSaudi is soaring after a source at the Saudi Arabian justice ministry reportedly said he would sue a Twitter user who compared Saudi Arabia to the terror group 'Islamic State.'" http://www.dw.com/en/suemesaudi-twitter-users-taunt-saudi-arabia/a-18884389 Tim Riches, Mississauga, Ontario ( talk) 19:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the By Individuals section, would perhaps be better transformed into a England and Wales super-injunction section, focussing more on their use, than on specific Giggs event. Though perhaps this is not possible if direct "this is Streisand effect" refs are needed. Specifically as the injunctions prevent media discussion, which drastically limits the options for sources, if BLP sourcing guidelines are to be followed. Lacunae ( talk) 20:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I added in a section on the recent Techdirt, Above the law and ABAjournal commentary on a subpeona issued by an American law firm against its anonymous former employees. The firm "supercharged" the negative reviews by making negative comments about the negative commentors. I think this is a reasonably notable addition, and I think that removing edits because they are "merely" additive borders on censorship itself. This does not seem to be an example of WP:Notnewspaper to me. I would appreciate comments from the group. (My writing can be tightened up a bit - it always can!) Thank you in advance for your comments. Saltwolf ( talk) 01:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Re this edit: the revert has nothing to do with legal reasons. Neither the National Post nor the Sunday Mail says "this is an example of the Streisand effect" so this is an example of WP:OR, which says "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Past consensus on this article is not to introduce new examples unless the source uses the phrase "Streisand effect" by name. As for the identities of the people in the saga of PJS v News Group Newspapers, so far only the National Enquirer has printed the full story and given the names of the people (allegedly) involved in promoting the use of olive oil. All of the other sources are quoting what the NE said. As for the specific link given in the citation with the URL http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/why-the-english-media-could-go-to-jail-for-reporting-on-the-olive-oil-trysts-of-elton-johns-husband , it looks like this has gone for a walk from the National Post website due to some assiduous behaviour somewhere along the line. This isn't as easy to cite as it first looks.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Originally I've made an addition as follows:
____
In January 2013, [1] at TEDx conference in London Whitechapel Graham Hancock gave the talk "The War on Consciousness" and Rupert Sheldrake gave the talk "The Science Delusion". The scientific board released a statement [2] after which the content of the talks were removed from the website. The discussion on the website generated more than 2000 comments, triggered a lot of interest and many unofficial copies were posted online. As of December 2016 the only other "banned TED talk" is Nick Hanauer talk "Rich People Don't Create Jobs".
References
____
These are concrete examples, with references, linking to specific paragraphs of people involved.
Response: "We don't need more examples, sources uncertain, SE not mentioned"
TED is a notable example, YouTube copies are getting more than 100K views each and search phrase "banned TED talk" works as a seal of approval - cannot ask for better recommendation.
What is "SE" in wiki slang? Special Edition?
Stefek99 ( talk) 22:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it's definitely in the wrong place but I don't have half the mind right now to fix it. Hope I come back later and fix it or someone else does in the meantime. See ya, Pax vobiscum, Emosy ( talk) 04:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Re this edit: I think that the current version of the image is too large. The reason given is "since it shows a small detail in an overall large field, it should be relatively large". The problem is that due to the way that the picture was taken, Streisand's house is going to be small regardless of the size of the thumbnail. If a person wants to see the image to its best advantage, they should click on the link and view the image directly.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Images in which a small region of detail is important (but cropping to that region is unacceptable)(which is our situation – the whole point is to show the image at issue, as it was, not modified in some way)
may need to be larger than normal, but upright=1.8 should usually be the largest value for images floated beside text.The current size is upright=1.7. Obviously the the reader wanting to "see the image to its best advantage... should click on the link and view the image directly", but he oughtn't have to do that just to be able to make out that there's a house in there somewhere.
Re this edit. The saga being referred to here is PJS v News Group Newspapers. If you want a source with the National Enquirer angle, there is one here. The couple were also named by the media in Scotland, Canada and the Republic of Ireland among others, making it trivially easy for anyone with access to the Internet to find out who they are. Nevertheless, naming them in the UK could cause this to happen. Scottish media lawyers took the view that the injunction did not apply in Scotland unless a similar injunction, known as an interdict, was obtained. [1]-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
This phenomenon has been going on alot longer than 2005. This has been going on with Secret Societies etc hundreds of years ago. To say that the term was only coined in 2005 because of Barbara Streisand is ridiculous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.113.122.146 ( talk) 11:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Irrelevant drivel |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
What additional criteria must be met before the exclusion of the Job Offer from the Hillary Clinton Campaign To Seth Rich from the Murder of Seth Rich Wikipedia Article qualifies for inclusion in The Streisand Effect article? From the article, it appears to be when the exclusion results in publicizing the information more widely, and it is documented by a reliable source. StreetSign ( talk) 12:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the honest feedback. The definition in the article of "an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet" and is what I think will eventually fit. Maybe weeks, months, or years. StreetSign ( talk) 15:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Yes. Forgotten by some, but in the case of people who rely significantly on Wikipedia, they would never know it. StreetSign ( talk) 23:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC) |
Benjamin ( talk) 09:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Dmol: Do you have any objections to [3]? If so, let's hear them. 78.28.54.200 ( talk) 04:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
We currently have a somewhat haphazard list of related subjects under 'see also'. I'm not sure what does and doesn't qualify. Any thoughts?
This article has a LOT of examples of the Streisand effect... But surely the universe has untold thousands and even millions of examples of events that are instances of the Streisand effect. I'd like to suggest that unless a particular event has been REFERRED TO as a "Streisand effect" by the media, that we not list it here as an example of this. Because otherwise there is no limit to what the article can contain, and it seems like there aught to be a limit. A loose noose ( talk) 23:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
On 15th of May a song won the oldest and most well know top-hits list in Poland (list of Polish National Radio Channel 3). It was this song - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9LzNtpjhV0
The Radio station tried to censorship this, they took down the news about the song winning this toplist, they also faked the 500 Internal Server Error (by putting a redirect) on the webpage showing the list results. Because of that the news about it spread like fire. No news on international sites yet, but all the polish news sites (except the government controlled ones) are reporting this, f.e. https://gwiazdy.wp.pl/wydawca-kazika-jesli-to-cenzura-to-moze-byc-koniec-trojki-moj-bol-jest-lepszy-niz-twoj-trojka-radio-6511166963935361a — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.11.131.204 ( talk) 00:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I was reading here [1] about a legal case in the UK that may have had some (ahem) 'unintended consequences' for the plaintiff.
(Actually. what I read was -- as you can probably see from the URL -- a
Wayback machine "archived" copy of an article whose 'original' does still exist, out there on the internet at the exact same ["original"] URL ... but whose 'original' I did not know about, until I started typing in field values [such as "url-status"] in the "{{
cite web}}
" template instance, in the "ref" tag for the footnote.)
As you can see (e.g., from the "quotes" in the footnote), -- which are, I remind you, from an English translation of the original -- the author not only mentions that this case might be a good example of the Streisand effect, but also goes into quite a bit of detail to explain some of the things, which probably should be -- and maybe they already are -- explained in the Wikipedia article about the Streisand effect. (I have not read either of those sources completely enough, to know whether the web post [perhaps] explains 'some' things better than the article.)
Just "FYI".
This is probably the reason why I was reading an "archived" copy of a web page whose 'original' still exists ... and has not moved from one URL to another.
The way I found the web post ( here [1]) was via a link from a section of https://www.wordnik.com/words/bogus that said [quote]
It appears, however, that the term bogus is more straightforward.
What the British Chiropractic Association - and English Libel Law - should do next
...where the hyperlink pointed to (the " dead link" URL) http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/reputation-of-british-chiropractic.html ... which might "look" -- or 'appear to be' -- "alive", to some robots, but clearly states -- at least when read by a person --
So, I decided to try using the Wayback machine to find an archived version.
I did find an archived version ... and I clicked on at least one link from one of the comments there (a comment dated "17 MAY 2009 21:32" from someone named " Yamato".)
The link (from that comment) that I clicked on was one that pointed to the URL
which ... (of course!) was a Wayback machine URL, since it was coming from a Wayback machine archived *copy* of some original web page.
Hence, when I started reading that "yamato1" web post (after clicking on a link from a comment) -- the web post was right here [1] -- I was reading a Wayback machine archived *copy* of that web post, even though its 'original' still exists ... and apparently it has not even moved from one URL to another.
References
the latest and worst news regarding the lawsuit that the British Chiropractic Association has filed against Simon Singh, and more specifically about the situation Singh now finds himself in and [...] have no doubt that the original article by Simon Singh [...] was widely disseminated, but I also have no doubt that this diffusion has multiplied thanks to the demand of the BCA, and it would not surprise me that if it were not for this judicial procedure, many people would never have heard of the BCA or read the Singh's criticism of chiropractic [...] It was also what happened here with the lawsuit filed by JJ Benítez against Luis Alfonso Gámez : although the quintessential Hispanic magufo won the lawsuit, for practical purposes the only thing he achieved was that the articles he considered harmful to his honorability have a much greater diffusion [...] In short, if we recapitulate, by suing Singh the BCA has achieved generate a lot of publicity (and not only on the internet , and not even only among the media), but not exactly very favorable. Rather the opposite: the dissemination of all this is managing to reveal the inconsistency of chiropractic and that its only response to a scientific criticism is to resort to its lawyers, since it cannot resort to any serious evidence [...]
Thanks, -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 20:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
You forgot something that happened in the politics section. A famous Russian NHL player, Artemi Panarin, was accused of woman abuse at a bar by his former coach as an intimidation tactic on national media. However, it got the Streisand effect in response and just gave Artemi more attention. Teremoir ( talk) 02:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I removed the part about the youtube-dl source code being published to GitHub's official repository because it technically wasn't, it was more of a stunt. It abuses how git and specifically GitHub handles viewing the code. The user who did this weighs in on reddit. Yubimusubi ( talk) 02:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Re this edit: The BBC and Spectator sources do not mention the effect by name, and the only source that does is a tweet, which would usually fail WP:SPS. As I said in this edit summary, I'm not sure if this is a clear cut example of the effect. There needs to be clearer mainstream sourcing mentioning the effect, rather than an opinion in a tweet.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
An attempt recently by the Deputy Premier of NSW to silence a youtuber publishing allegedly verified info about alleged corruption has resulted in a defamation action - followed rapidly by an unusual arrest of the producer on stalking charges (containing allegedly false info on the sworn statement!) by the Fixated Persons unit of the Police Terrorism squad within hours of a videoed meeting and exceptional bail conditions preventing him, in effect from possibly defending the defamation suit. This is exploding in a sensational way with all sorts of legal, right, media repercussions, etc - Google will turn it up :-) It is not finished yet - should end up a classic when the dust settles:-) 193.116.240.151 ( talk) 11:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Does anybody else think an example of a police officer trying to keep citizen-recorded video of his actions from being posted online by playing copyrighted pop music while being filmed (and suggesting that youtube's automated algorithms would remove the video as a result) is distinct enough from other government actions so as to serve as an example? This Washington Post article specifically references the Streisand Effect in reporting the subsequent viral online spread of the video. An officer played a Taylor Swift song to keep his recording off YouTube. Instead it went viral "The tactic used by Shelby is one law enforcement personnel have tried before. But some of the attempts seem to amount to prime cases of the “Streisand Effect,” a term used to describe an attempt to hide or censor information that actually makes it more widespread." 68.189.242.116 ( talk) 15:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
"Incentive that has an contrary result". Tried to fix, but it's something called an annotated link, which I've never seen before.- ShorinBJ ( talk) 01:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
The examples in the article suggest that it only works with the internet, but there are also many examples before the time of the internet listed at tvtropes.org. Maybe some of them should be included here. -- MrBurns ( talk) 19:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I see some examples here cited to sources that don't even mention the term "Streisand effect" or even the word "streisand". It seems like a WP:OR violation to include them. Even if the source describes an increase in publicity resulting from a suppression attempt, if the source doesn't refer to it as a "Streisand effect", then neither should Wikipedia by including the example in this article.
If no one objects, I plan to go through the article and eliminate these examples. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 21:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Does anybody think this is an example of the Streisand effect? 64.207.220.243 ( talk) 07:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
It ostensibly had only four views prior to being discovered by Streisand, and was one in over thousands on the photographer's site.
How does a celebrity who has nothing to do with geomorphology discover such a photo? Foxwagen2010 ( talk) 13:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
The first sentence should define the effect, and should not read like a blog. Tankpiggy18 ( talk) 22:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
In the last 48-odd hours, Twitter has suspended a bunch of people who owner and CEO Elon Musk doesn't like, including an account that uses public information to track the movements of his private jet and journalists who cover Elon Musk and Twitter. This has resulted in ElonJet being covered by the BBC and the journalist suspensions being covered by practically every outlet that covers them. The real question is whether this falls under By businesses or By individuals, on the site, due to it being very transparently Elon having a temper tantrum and using Twitter as an outlet for it. Goclonefilms ( talk) 02:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I understand the rationale for removing the daily wire reference, however I had included it specifically because it mentioned ‘The Streisand Effect’. My concern is that without that specific reference to the effect, someone will see fit to remove the entire section on Musk. Chausettes ( talk) 16:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
This is the daily wire ref that was removed. As you can see, it mentions Streisand effect very clearly: https://www.dailywire.com/news/streisand-effect-elon-musk-bans-account-that-he-said-he-wouldnt-unbans-it-then-bans-it-again%20%7Caccess-date=2022-12-16 Chausettes ( talk) 16:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I have added the daily views template (currently last of the coloured blocks at the top of this talk page). Visits have shot up from background noise to 800,000 a day. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 16:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I believe that this is an example of the Streisand Effect, I found three different news outlets that specifically mention the Streisand Effect when discussing the government's attempts to censor this documentary but I don't know enough about Indian news outlets to gauge whether these are reliable sources that are citation worthy. [1] [2] [3]
References
Would appreciate other editors thoughts.
Raitchison (
talk) 18:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
In January 2023, Eliza Bleu a self-professed "Trafficking Advocate" was asked to clarify her appearance in a Hip hop music video on YouTube and also WorldStarHipHop. The salacious video had been on both sites for over 6 years. Podcaster Brittany Venti (@BrittantVenti) used screen grabs from the consensual video to tweet question Eliza Bleu as it appeared to be uploaded during the period that Bleu claimed she was sex trafficked. [1] [2] [3] Eliza Bleu responded by blocking Brittany Venti and then contacted her friends at Twitter to have Venti's account suspended. Another Podcaster Jeremy Hambly of The Quartering (@TheQuartering) questioned why Venti was blocked and suspended and he was blocked and suspended as well. More Podcasters were also suspended. Bleu then threatened legal action against the podcasters. This caused dozens of other podcasters to question Eliza Bleu's background and it was discovered that she had multiple aliases and many historical anomalies. Evidence shows that Bleu was actually a cam-girl and a groupie of pop group My Chemical Romance. It has also been suggested that photos of Bleu were used for Catfishing men and that this was the Human trafficking that Bleu was referring to. Daniel Cotton, the copyright owner of the hiphop video stated that Bleu was paid for the video and that he owns the rights. [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelpwsmith ( talk • contribs) 13:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
References
As I understand it, the Streisand effect involves the following:
I don't think Hogwarts Legacy fits this definition for the following reasons:
Obviously we'll never know exactly how much attention the boycott drew, but it was probably a drop in the bucket compared to everything else. I'd argue that the game would have become a bestseller anyway (even if the boycott had never happened) because it's a major publication from a major franchise and it was well crafted.
I'm not trying to say that the controversy shouldn't be on the wiki (or that the boycott had no effect), however it's case for being on this page seems very flimsy at best. Chimeforest ( talk) 10:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
What's the point of having a list of ~35 examples? I doubt anyone trying to learn about the effect is going to read through it. The concept can be fully explained with just two or three examples. Do the sources of those examples even mention Streisand effect? If not it would be WP:OR. I suspect this list is mostly compiled by people who wish to ridicule the parties involved in those events. They saw someone they dislike failing to censor something and they came here to append the list. There was no consideration of whether the example add anything to the article. C9mVio9JRy ( talk) 10:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
To the IP editor who wishes to "clarify" the backstory of the original Streisand affair: you can make these changes if (and only if) you provide a reliable source that says so. Such as a court record, for example. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 18:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Barbra Streisand explained in her memoir her security concerns and experience with intruders. The image is tagged with her name and provides longitude & latitude co-ordinates of her home. See Streisand_effect#Rebuttal_by_Barbra_Streisand & topic above this. We should not dox a public figure on WP, and she claims her action was to thwart doxing, not suppress the photo. Walton22 ( talk) 04:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
A few comments.
I've been having a look at Barbra Streisand's book My Name is Barbra which was published in November 2023. In Chapter 56, Giving Back, she gives her side of the incident that led to the coining of the phrase "Streisand effect". She says "Contrary to the explanation on Wikipedia, I did not attempt to “suppress” a photograph of my house. My issue was never with the photo . . . it was only about the use of my name attached to the photo... all the homes were identified only by longitude and latitude and not by the owners’ names . . . except for five celebrities, including me. Suddenly there was a photo on the internet with my house, my name, and the exact coordinates where I lived...All I asked was that this man please just treat me like everyone else and remove my name, for security reasons. But he refused... Recently I tried to correct the Wikipedia entry to reflect the actual facts, but we were told that would be impossible. Why? Isn’t the truth enough?" This is interesting, because it shows that Barbra Streisand has taken a personal interest in what this Wikipedia article says. She goes on to say "I felt I was standing up for a principle, but in retrospect, it was a mistake. I also assumed that my lawyer had done exactly as I wished and simply asked to take my name off the photo . . . but the lesson I had to learn again was, Never assume. (It’s also my fault. I should have taken the time to read all the legal documents.)" Most people will have received the impression from news coverage that the dispute was over the publication of image 3850 rather than simply the name tag that the image had, which was "Streisand Estate, Malibu" according the court ruling. According to the book, Streisand believes that the lawyer made a mistake by turning the photo into the issue in the court case rather than simply removing the name tag. This casts new light on the matter, but there is some WP:PRIMARY here. Wikipedia summarizes what secondary reliable sources have said about something, and until now the consensus has been that the dispute was over the publication of image 3850 itself rather than simply its name tag; this is supported by the court ruling. ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Charlie Hebdo printed a cartoon that Muslin extremists wanted UN-published. The killing of innocent people over a cartoon gave more publicity to the cartoon than ever before. The opposite of what the extremist wanted. I submit this for a listing in "Streisand effect".-- Mark v1.0 ( talk) 21:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
For proof of the opposite of suppression occurred , with the effort to suppress ( the intent of the killing) "Five million copies of the edition were printed, compared with the usual 60,000. " http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/charlie-hebdo-montrealers-line-up-for-post-attack-edition-1.2912489 -- Mark v1.0 ( talk) 22:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I support Mark's original proposal that the Charlie Hebdo shooting should be added to the article, for the following simple reason. The Streisand Effect is an evidently notable, but it is a language term defined by growing and changing usage, rather than defined and set in stone by scholarly articles. Indeed, I haven't been able to find any scholarly articles that defines it, as distinct from uses it, just as newspapers and bloggers use it.
When examining published examples of usage of the SE, we see it's original usage was re something no-one would have bothered with except for the SE, expanded to takedown notices of content that was already getting some viewing, through to security agencies attempting to suppress individual pages on wp, thru to govts trying to suppress entire websites, and now to gunmen trying to suppress cartoons. The actors started with lawyers, then expanded to security agencies, govts, and now gunmen. The relevant targeted media started with individual photos, but has expanded info about a person, whole websites, shirts, and now cartoons.
The original creation of the term "the SE" was by a blogger on his own website, and the most authoritative sources for wp's SE article are newspapers. So if the sources that use the SE when covering the Charlie Hebdo shooting are not considered adequate, then none of the sources for the entire wp SE article are adequate, so by that argument the entire wp SE article should be removed, which I think is clearly nonsensical.
Re the various objections to Mark's original proposal:
Re sources for published usage of SE re Hebdo, there are about 5 in fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effet_Streisand - the sources in fr.wp are about par with other sources in the en.wp article. fwiw, I think French editors deserve a bit of cred when judging whether SE applies to Hebdo. I also noticed a Huffington Post article re SE and Hebdo, and HP meets en.wp sources policy for this sort of thing.
btw, I created a special wp account to get this reverted, because I wanted tight anonymity. (And no, I am not Mark - never heard of him before.) I suspect a reason we have had Mark's contribution reverted for so long is because folk are reluctant to say anything about hebdo. Or perhaps the blood-red colours of TheRedPenOfDoom cause other WPians to abandon all hope of calm and reasoned discussion. Or perhaps WP contributors can no longer be bothered to fight those who slash and burn. RedPen, could you please demonstrate magnanimity and revert Mark's version back in. Or could someone else with more than 10 edits put Mark's version back in, and/or copy a translation from fr.wp along with its citations?
TheGreenPenOfHope 06:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Our article should contain enough examples of the phenomenon to make it clear, but at the moment it seems to be turning into a bit of a coat rack. Are all of these examples needed, and particularly do we need a list of them which will inevitably grow to include many instantly forgettable examples? Wouldn't it be better to use a few choice examples in the discussion of the phenomenon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway ( talk • contribs)
Part of the issue may also be that as the phrase is moving into wider use, it is simply being used as a more flowery replacement for "unintended consequences" that involve media coverage rather than the more specific parameters of its original coinage and usage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it'd improve the article and cut down on the coatracking to rewrite the example section as prose - a few paragraphs that group and explore the different contexts of the Streisand effect ("celebrities", "government", "corporate" and "members of public"?) using two or three strong examples to illustrate each. The current mostly-chronological bulleted list is ideal for breaking news coatracking, but doesn't seem particularly readable. -- McGeddon ( talk) 17:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and split the "Selected examples" into three simple sections ("In politics", "By businesses" and "By individuals"), which I can't see involves any WP:OR. Next step might be to restructure the paragraphs in order of significance, rather than chronologically (which seems meaningless, as the Streisand effect isn't something that's changed over time). -- McGeddon ( talk) 09:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The category was deleted following Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_12#Category:Streisand_effect, even through there were 7 keep votes and 6 (inc. nominators') delete votes. Ping User:Cirt: should we ask for WP:REFUND or such? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone seen any sources (I guess a newspaper columnist somewhere) mention this about Indiana's (infamous?) 2015 Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed by Gov. Pence? Jimw338 ( talk) 18:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
These two hashtags typify the Streisand Effect. It would make a great addition to the wiki. "The hashtag #SueMeSaudi is soaring after a source at the Saudi Arabian justice ministry reportedly said he would sue a Twitter user who compared Saudi Arabia to the terror group 'Islamic State.'" http://www.dw.com/en/suemesaudi-twitter-users-taunt-saudi-arabia/a-18884389 Tim Riches, Mississauga, Ontario ( talk) 19:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the By Individuals section, would perhaps be better transformed into a England and Wales super-injunction section, focussing more on their use, than on specific Giggs event. Though perhaps this is not possible if direct "this is Streisand effect" refs are needed. Specifically as the injunctions prevent media discussion, which drastically limits the options for sources, if BLP sourcing guidelines are to be followed. Lacunae ( talk) 20:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I added in a section on the recent Techdirt, Above the law and ABAjournal commentary on a subpeona issued by an American law firm against its anonymous former employees. The firm "supercharged" the negative reviews by making negative comments about the negative commentors. I think this is a reasonably notable addition, and I think that removing edits because they are "merely" additive borders on censorship itself. This does not seem to be an example of WP:Notnewspaper to me. I would appreciate comments from the group. (My writing can be tightened up a bit - it always can!) Thank you in advance for your comments. Saltwolf ( talk) 01:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Re this edit: the revert has nothing to do with legal reasons. Neither the National Post nor the Sunday Mail says "this is an example of the Streisand effect" so this is an example of WP:OR, which says "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Past consensus on this article is not to introduce new examples unless the source uses the phrase "Streisand effect" by name. As for the identities of the people in the saga of PJS v News Group Newspapers, so far only the National Enquirer has printed the full story and given the names of the people (allegedly) involved in promoting the use of olive oil. All of the other sources are quoting what the NE said. As for the specific link given in the citation with the URL http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/why-the-english-media-could-go-to-jail-for-reporting-on-the-olive-oil-trysts-of-elton-johns-husband , it looks like this has gone for a walk from the National Post website due to some assiduous behaviour somewhere along the line. This isn't as easy to cite as it first looks.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Originally I've made an addition as follows:
____
In January 2013, [1] at TEDx conference in London Whitechapel Graham Hancock gave the talk "The War on Consciousness" and Rupert Sheldrake gave the talk "The Science Delusion". The scientific board released a statement [2] after which the content of the talks were removed from the website. The discussion on the website generated more than 2000 comments, triggered a lot of interest and many unofficial copies were posted online. As of December 2016 the only other "banned TED talk" is Nick Hanauer talk "Rich People Don't Create Jobs".
References
____
These are concrete examples, with references, linking to specific paragraphs of people involved.
Response: "We don't need more examples, sources uncertain, SE not mentioned"
TED is a notable example, YouTube copies are getting more than 100K views each and search phrase "banned TED talk" works as a seal of approval - cannot ask for better recommendation.
What is "SE" in wiki slang? Special Edition?
Stefek99 ( talk) 22:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it's definitely in the wrong place but I don't have half the mind right now to fix it. Hope I come back later and fix it or someone else does in the meantime. See ya, Pax vobiscum, Emosy ( talk) 04:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Re this edit: I think that the current version of the image is too large. The reason given is "since it shows a small detail in an overall large field, it should be relatively large". The problem is that due to the way that the picture was taken, Streisand's house is going to be small regardless of the size of the thumbnail. If a person wants to see the image to its best advantage, they should click on the link and view the image directly.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Images in which a small region of detail is important (but cropping to that region is unacceptable)(which is our situation – the whole point is to show the image at issue, as it was, not modified in some way)
may need to be larger than normal, but upright=1.8 should usually be the largest value for images floated beside text.The current size is upright=1.7. Obviously the the reader wanting to "see the image to its best advantage... should click on the link and view the image directly", but he oughtn't have to do that just to be able to make out that there's a house in there somewhere.
Re this edit. The saga being referred to here is PJS v News Group Newspapers. If you want a source with the National Enquirer angle, there is one here. The couple were also named by the media in Scotland, Canada and the Republic of Ireland among others, making it trivially easy for anyone with access to the Internet to find out who they are. Nevertheless, naming them in the UK could cause this to happen. Scottish media lawyers took the view that the injunction did not apply in Scotland unless a similar injunction, known as an interdict, was obtained. [1]-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
This phenomenon has been going on alot longer than 2005. This has been going on with Secret Societies etc hundreds of years ago. To say that the term was only coined in 2005 because of Barbara Streisand is ridiculous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.113.122.146 ( talk) 11:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Irrelevant drivel |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
What additional criteria must be met before the exclusion of the Job Offer from the Hillary Clinton Campaign To Seth Rich from the Murder of Seth Rich Wikipedia Article qualifies for inclusion in The Streisand Effect article? From the article, it appears to be when the exclusion results in publicizing the information more widely, and it is documented by a reliable source. StreetSign ( talk) 12:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the honest feedback. The definition in the article of "an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet" and is what I think will eventually fit. Maybe weeks, months, or years. StreetSign ( talk) 15:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Yes. Forgotten by some, but in the case of people who rely significantly on Wikipedia, they would never know it. StreetSign ( talk) 23:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC) |
Benjamin ( talk) 09:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Dmol: Do you have any objections to [3]? If so, let's hear them. 78.28.54.200 ( talk) 04:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
We currently have a somewhat haphazard list of related subjects under 'see also'. I'm not sure what does and doesn't qualify. Any thoughts?
This article has a LOT of examples of the Streisand effect... But surely the universe has untold thousands and even millions of examples of events that are instances of the Streisand effect. I'd like to suggest that unless a particular event has been REFERRED TO as a "Streisand effect" by the media, that we not list it here as an example of this. Because otherwise there is no limit to what the article can contain, and it seems like there aught to be a limit. A loose noose ( talk) 23:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
On 15th of May a song won the oldest and most well know top-hits list in Poland (list of Polish National Radio Channel 3). It was this song - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9LzNtpjhV0
The Radio station tried to censorship this, they took down the news about the song winning this toplist, they also faked the 500 Internal Server Error (by putting a redirect) on the webpage showing the list results. Because of that the news about it spread like fire. No news on international sites yet, but all the polish news sites (except the government controlled ones) are reporting this, f.e. https://gwiazdy.wp.pl/wydawca-kazika-jesli-to-cenzura-to-moze-byc-koniec-trojki-moj-bol-jest-lepszy-niz-twoj-trojka-radio-6511166963935361a — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.11.131.204 ( talk) 00:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I was reading here [1] about a legal case in the UK that may have had some (ahem) 'unintended consequences' for the plaintiff.
(Actually. what I read was -- as you can probably see from the URL -- a
Wayback machine "archived" copy of an article whose 'original' does still exist, out there on the internet at the exact same ["original"] URL ... but whose 'original' I did not know about, until I started typing in field values [such as "url-status"] in the "{{
cite web}}
" template instance, in the "ref" tag for the footnote.)
As you can see (e.g., from the "quotes" in the footnote), -- which are, I remind you, from an English translation of the original -- the author not only mentions that this case might be a good example of the Streisand effect, but also goes into quite a bit of detail to explain some of the things, which probably should be -- and maybe they already are -- explained in the Wikipedia article about the Streisand effect. (I have not read either of those sources completely enough, to know whether the web post [perhaps] explains 'some' things better than the article.)
Just "FYI".
This is probably the reason why I was reading an "archived" copy of a web page whose 'original' still exists ... and has not moved from one URL to another.
The way I found the web post ( here [1]) was via a link from a section of https://www.wordnik.com/words/bogus that said [quote]
It appears, however, that the term bogus is more straightforward.
What the British Chiropractic Association - and English Libel Law - should do next
...where the hyperlink pointed to (the " dead link" URL) http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/reputation-of-british-chiropractic.html ... which might "look" -- or 'appear to be' -- "alive", to some robots, but clearly states -- at least when read by a person --
So, I decided to try using the Wayback machine to find an archived version.
I did find an archived version ... and I clicked on at least one link from one of the comments there (a comment dated "17 MAY 2009 21:32" from someone named " Yamato".)
The link (from that comment) that I clicked on was one that pointed to the URL
which ... (of course!) was a Wayback machine URL, since it was coming from a Wayback machine archived *copy* of some original web page.
Hence, when I started reading that "yamato1" web post (after clicking on a link from a comment) -- the web post was right here [1] -- I was reading a Wayback machine archived *copy* of that web post, even though its 'original' still exists ... and apparently it has not even moved from one URL to another.
References
the latest and worst news regarding the lawsuit that the British Chiropractic Association has filed against Simon Singh, and more specifically about the situation Singh now finds himself in and [...] have no doubt that the original article by Simon Singh [...] was widely disseminated, but I also have no doubt that this diffusion has multiplied thanks to the demand of the BCA, and it would not surprise me that if it were not for this judicial procedure, many people would never have heard of the BCA or read the Singh's criticism of chiropractic [...] It was also what happened here with the lawsuit filed by JJ Benítez against Luis Alfonso Gámez : although the quintessential Hispanic magufo won the lawsuit, for practical purposes the only thing he achieved was that the articles he considered harmful to his honorability have a much greater diffusion [...] In short, if we recapitulate, by suing Singh the BCA has achieved generate a lot of publicity (and not only on the internet , and not even only among the media), but not exactly very favorable. Rather the opposite: the dissemination of all this is managing to reveal the inconsistency of chiropractic and that its only response to a scientific criticism is to resort to its lawyers, since it cannot resort to any serious evidence [...]
Thanks, -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 20:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
You forgot something that happened in the politics section. A famous Russian NHL player, Artemi Panarin, was accused of woman abuse at a bar by his former coach as an intimidation tactic on national media. However, it got the Streisand effect in response and just gave Artemi more attention. Teremoir ( talk) 02:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I removed the part about the youtube-dl source code being published to GitHub's official repository because it technically wasn't, it was more of a stunt. It abuses how git and specifically GitHub handles viewing the code. The user who did this weighs in on reddit. Yubimusubi ( talk) 02:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Re this edit: The BBC and Spectator sources do not mention the effect by name, and the only source that does is a tweet, which would usually fail WP:SPS. As I said in this edit summary, I'm not sure if this is a clear cut example of the effect. There needs to be clearer mainstream sourcing mentioning the effect, rather than an opinion in a tweet.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
An attempt recently by the Deputy Premier of NSW to silence a youtuber publishing allegedly verified info about alleged corruption has resulted in a defamation action - followed rapidly by an unusual arrest of the producer on stalking charges (containing allegedly false info on the sworn statement!) by the Fixated Persons unit of the Police Terrorism squad within hours of a videoed meeting and exceptional bail conditions preventing him, in effect from possibly defending the defamation suit. This is exploding in a sensational way with all sorts of legal, right, media repercussions, etc - Google will turn it up :-) It is not finished yet - should end up a classic when the dust settles:-) 193.116.240.151 ( talk) 11:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Does anybody else think an example of a police officer trying to keep citizen-recorded video of his actions from being posted online by playing copyrighted pop music while being filmed (and suggesting that youtube's automated algorithms would remove the video as a result) is distinct enough from other government actions so as to serve as an example? This Washington Post article specifically references the Streisand Effect in reporting the subsequent viral online spread of the video. An officer played a Taylor Swift song to keep his recording off YouTube. Instead it went viral "The tactic used by Shelby is one law enforcement personnel have tried before. But some of the attempts seem to amount to prime cases of the “Streisand Effect,” a term used to describe an attempt to hide or censor information that actually makes it more widespread." 68.189.242.116 ( talk) 15:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
"Incentive that has an contrary result". Tried to fix, but it's something called an annotated link, which I've never seen before.- ShorinBJ ( talk) 01:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
The examples in the article suggest that it only works with the internet, but there are also many examples before the time of the internet listed at tvtropes.org. Maybe some of them should be included here. -- MrBurns ( talk) 19:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I see some examples here cited to sources that don't even mention the term "Streisand effect" or even the word "streisand". It seems like a WP:OR violation to include them. Even if the source describes an increase in publicity resulting from a suppression attempt, if the source doesn't refer to it as a "Streisand effect", then neither should Wikipedia by including the example in this article.
If no one objects, I plan to go through the article and eliminate these examples. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 21:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Does anybody think this is an example of the Streisand effect? 64.207.220.243 ( talk) 07:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
It ostensibly had only four views prior to being discovered by Streisand, and was one in over thousands on the photographer's site.
How does a celebrity who has nothing to do with geomorphology discover such a photo? Foxwagen2010 ( talk) 13:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
The first sentence should define the effect, and should not read like a blog. Tankpiggy18 ( talk) 22:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
In the last 48-odd hours, Twitter has suspended a bunch of people who owner and CEO Elon Musk doesn't like, including an account that uses public information to track the movements of his private jet and journalists who cover Elon Musk and Twitter. This has resulted in ElonJet being covered by the BBC and the journalist suspensions being covered by practically every outlet that covers them. The real question is whether this falls under By businesses or By individuals, on the site, due to it being very transparently Elon having a temper tantrum and using Twitter as an outlet for it. Goclonefilms ( talk) 02:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I understand the rationale for removing the daily wire reference, however I had included it specifically because it mentioned ‘The Streisand Effect’. My concern is that without that specific reference to the effect, someone will see fit to remove the entire section on Musk. Chausettes ( talk) 16:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
This is the daily wire ref that was removed. As you can see, it mentions Streisand effect very clearly: https://www.dailywire.com/news/streisand-effect-elon-musk-bans-account-that-he-said-he-wouldnt-unbans-it-then-bans-it-again%20%7Caccess-date=2022-12-16 Chausettes ( talk) 16:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I have added the daily views template (currently last of the coloured blocks at the top of this talk page). Visits have shot up from background noise to 800,000 a day. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 16:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I believe that this is an example of the Streisand Effect, I found three different news outlets that specifically mention the Streisand Effect when discussing the government's attempts to censor this documentary but I don't know enough about Indian news outlets to gauge whether these are reliable sources that are citation worthy. [1] [2] [3]
References
Would appreciate other editors thoughts.
Raitchison (
talk) 18:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
In January 2023, Eliza Bleu a self-professed "Trafficking Advocate" was asked to clarify her appearance in a Hip hop music video on YouTube and also WorldStarHipHop. The salacious video had been on both sites for over 6 years. Podcaster Brittany Venti (@BrittantVenti) used screen grabs from the consensual video to tweet question Eliza Bleu as it appeared to be uploaded during the period that Bleu claimed she was sex trafficked. [1] [2] [3] Eliza Bleu responded by blocking Brittany Venti and then contacted her friends at Twitter to have Venti's account suspended. Another Podcaster Jeremy Hambly of The Quartering (@TheQuartering) questioned why Venti was blocked and suspended and he was blocked and suspended as well. More Podcasters were also suspended. Bleu then threatened legal action against the podcasters. This caused dozens of other podcasters to question Eliza Bleu's background and it was discovered that she had multiple aliases and many historical anomalies. Evidence shows that Bleu was actually a cam-girl and a groupie of pop group My Chemical Romance. It has also been suggested that photos of Bleu were used for Catfishing men and that this was the Human trafficking that Bleu was referring to. Daniel Cotton, the copyright owner of the hiphop video stated that Bleu was paid for the video and that he owns the rights. [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelpwsmith ( talk • contribs) 13:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
References
As I understand it, the Streisand effect involves the following:
I don't think Hogwarts Legacy fits this definition for the following reasons:
Obviously we'll never know exactly how much attention the boycott drew, but it was probably a drop in the bucket compared to everything else. I'd argue that the game would have become a bestseller anyway (even if the boycott had never happened) because it's a major publication from a major franchise and it was well crafted.
I'm not trying to say that the controversy shouldn't be on the wiki (or that the boycott had no effect), however it's case for being on this page seems very flimsy at best. Chimeforest ( talk) 10:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
What's the point of having a list of ~35 examples? I doubt anyone trying to learn about the effect is going to read through it. The concept can be fully explained with just two or three examples. Do the sources of those examples even mention Streisand effect? If not it would be WP:OR. I suspect this list is mostly compiled by people who wish to ridicule the parties involved in those events. They saw someone they dislike failing to censor something and they came here to append the list. There was no consideration of whether the example add anything to the article. C9mVio9JRy ( talk) 10:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
To the IP editor who wishes to "clarify" the backstory of the original Streisand affair: you can make these changes if (and only if) you provide a reliable source that says so. Such as a court record, for example. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 18:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Barbra Streisand explained in her memoir her security concerns and experience with intruders. The image is tagged with her name and provides longitude & latitude co-ordinates of her home. See Streisand_effect#Rebuttal_by_Barbra_Streisand & topic above this. We should not dox a public figure on WP, and she claims her action was to thwart doxing, not suppress the photo. Walton22 ( talk) 04:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
A few comments.
I've been having a look at Barbra Streisand's book My Name is Barbra which was published in November 2023. In Chapter 56, Giving Back, she gives her side of the incident that led to the coining of the phrase "Streisand effect". She says "Contrary to the explanation on Wikipedia, I did not attempt to “suppress” a photograph of my house. My issue was never with the photo . . . it was only about the use of my name attached to the photo... all the homes were identified only by longitude and latitude and not by the owners’ names . . . except for five celebrities, including me. Suddenly there was a photo on the internet with my house, my name, and the exact coordinates where I lived...All I asked was that this man please just treat me like everyone else and remove my name, for security reasons. But he refused... Recently I tried to correct the Wikipedia entry to reflect the actual facts, but we were told that would be impossible. Why? Isn’t the truth enough?" This is interesting, because it shows that Barbra Streisand has taken a personal interest in what this Wikipedia article says. She goes on to say "I felt I was standing up for a principle, but in retrospect, it was a mistake. I also assumed that my lawyer had done exactly as I wished and simply asked to take my name off the photo . . . but the lesson I had to learn again was, Never assume. (It’s also my fault. I should have taken the time to read all the legal documents.)" Most people will have received the impression from news coverage that the dispute was over the publication of image 3850 rather than simply the name tag that the image had, which was "Streisand Estate, Malibu" according the court ruling. According to the book, Streisand believes that the lawyer made a mistake by turning the photo into the issue in the court case rather than simply removing the name tag. This casts new light on the matter, but there is some WP:PRIMARY here. Wikipedia summarizes what secondary reliable sources have said about something, and until now the consensus has been that the dispute was over the publication of image 3850 itself rather than simply its name tag; this is supported by the court ruling. ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)