Talk:Michael Ignatieff/Archive 2

This is an archived discussion from Talk:Michael Ignatieff. While it's not particularly long, it's incredibly inflammatory and shouldn't be on the main talk page anymore. -Joshuapaquin 01:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hundreds of Porn Sites have "Michael Ignatieff" keywords for Yahoo searches

Back in January when I first yahooed "Michael Ignatieff" hundreds of "swingers" websites popped up with his name and ONLY his name embedded in the keywords list; here is 1 example(his name is near the end);

• 21. pornografia xxx,best pornografia xxx - pornografia xxx

PORNOGRAFIA XXX. Site about pornografia xxx. A lot of information about pornografia xxx. Links to pornografia xxx sites and articles. Tylko najwyzsza jakosc! ... bonn kanye west nokia 3410 composers swinger clubs photos male masterbation groups adult ... negara education in ghana michael ignatieff wupdmgr exe pornografia xxx dirt cheap ...pornografia-xxx.danting.be - 298k - Cached - More from this site - Save

Back then those sites were easily accessed and were mostly middle aged men engaging in sex acts with young women. One of those men had a striking resemblence to Ignatieff but I didn't really care at the time and thought it was likely a spoof or political dirty trick. My wife told me yesterday that it would be strange that someone would go to all that trouble to embed keywords into sites which seemed to be for real porn purposes and that it would be interesting to find out who owns or is responsible for the sites as it might be someone trying to expose Ignatieff in some way.

Today, when I yahooed "Michael Ignatieff" the sites don't seem to come up BUT when I yahoo "Michael Ignatieff porn sites" [1] or "Michael Ignatieff swinger"[2] they do come onto the search list. Most of the sites now require some type of download(which I refuse to do) but some go straight to porn photos. I don't know what it all means but there are so many of them it seems like someone who controls these sites went to a lot of trouble to try to associate Ignatieff with them; this, coupled with the images I saw in January as well as the fact Ignatieff is now ahead in the leadership race makes me think this information needs to be followed up on. My question here is; does this information and/or links belong in the article? 64.229.66.192 02:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've sat here for twenty minutes trying to write an answer, but I keep collapsing in laughter. Sorry. -Joshuapaquin 03:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

When I read the edit I thought it was a joke, but the 9/11 commission suggested we all start trying to "think outside the box"; so I have been giving this matter much more considered thought than I would have in the past; especially in terms of "Why" would the owner(s) of all these sites be wasting his time putting Ignatieff's name into all these sites? It is a fact that Ignatieff's name has been keyworded into numerous porn sites. Here's another example;

"telefonski imenik,best telefonski imenik - telefonski imenik TELEFONSKI IMENIK. Site about telefonski imenik. A lot of information about telefonski imenik. Links to telefonski imenik sites and articles. Tylko najwyzsza jakosc! ... heels pics rfee sex sites hallmarkt jerry savelle ministry ... toon xxx disney xxx porn simpsons personal check girls ... karen konyha wrestling michael ignatieff nude shoolgirls gourmet ...telefonski-imenik.ke.az.pl - 225k - Cached - More from this site - Save".

Since an encyclopedia reports facts rather than trying to interpret then I feel what is known must be included in the article. Neutralizer 12:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No, an encyclopedia reports important facts. That someone's name appears on a porn site has nothing to do with them and is important (perhaps, though likely not) to the knowledge of how porn sites may work, but not important to the understanding of the person whose name is so abused. - Nunh-huh 12:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Importance" is a very relative term. Some do not feel its worth mentioning that he has children in England; others fell it is worth mentioning. I think this is important because of its oddity and because it is an undisputed fact; unlike many of the other references in the article. The entire listing of his blood-lines and ancesters' achievements is not important at all to me; however, I respect the fact that some might be interested Neutralizer 12:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I must point out to Nunh-huh that it's his own pov "That someone's name appears on a porn site has nothing to do with them".If someone developed a porn site with Hillary Clinton featured in it; they would very likely have her name as a "keyword phrase" in the site's construction.If she were indeed featured on the site; then I think that would be quite important, whether she liked it or approved of it or not (think Pam Anderson/Tommy Lee).Nunh-huh's phrase "the person whose name is so abused" might be indicative of a certain pov which might explain but not justify their attempted censorship of the article.Ottawaman 13:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I mean; which includes a couple of paragraphs and a large Porn type ad about unauthorized porn videos related to the subject person. Nunh-huh;please do not censor this information unless you are also prepared to censor other similar disclosures on Wikipedia and never without a consensus. Ottawaman 13:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Grow up. Removing bogus trivia isn't censorship, and exercising good editorial judgment isn't, either. - Nunh-huh 21:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Who cares about any of this: it's all original research. It goes, regardless of whether it's true (or hilarious). --Hamiltonian 14:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Neutralizer's contributions and Ottawaman's contributions. Near-certain sockpuppet, and the former has a history of making, erm, especially bold edits. -Joshuapaquin 15:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I just reread original research and I must disagree with Hamiltonianthat a simple statement (to the effect that the keywords exist) would fall under the definition. The keywords are already published in the yahoo search lists so how does such a statement,without interpretation constitute original research? There may be some other reason(s) for disallowing the information but I don't think the original research glove fits. I agree with Ottawaman that Nunh-huh's supportive pov re; Iggy "the person whose name is so abused" is rather obvious and I also notice that Joshuapaquin (mistakenly I assume) left an inaccurate (I won't assume misleading) edit summary when restoring a rather biased phrase which had been rightly removed from the article, it seems to me. 64.229.28.189 12:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Placing it in the article advances its notability to the article, which is, in a roundabout, but clear, way original research. Clearly, while amusing, it is also not notable or important in any way whatsoever, unless it can be established that Ignatieff lives the secret life of a swinger and someone else who knows this is trying to expose him as such through an elaborate and obscure system of placing keywords into the HTML of websites. Which, unless it can be cited in a secondary source isn't going in the article. Thousands of public figures have had their names used as keywords of websites - it's not notable. --Hamiltonian 13:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Reasonable but faulty logic. The words "Michael Ignatieff" would not be nearly as useful to a porn site as keywords as female movie stars and on the vast majority of these sites his name is the only one mentioned. The other arguments above seem suitable for keeping the Pam Lee/Tommy Jones references out of her article which clearly is not the case; and I would argue that this tidbit is as notable or as important to this political celebrity as the stolen porn video is to the acting celebrities. I would also remind Hamiltonian that he has no sole perspective in this matter as,unfortunately, his "not going into the article" seems to imply. Admittedly the issue is amusing when first considered but some would argue that so is much else about this long absent candidate's rapid ascension in the political arena of the wealthiest country in the world (on a resources per capita basis). If we were to deny all of the amusing items from the article there would be little,if anything left. 70.50.76.68 18:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously though, how is this encyclopedic? How is it important? Go to a newspaper, if you want to make this notable. If the Globe and Mail publishes it, then maybe. --Hamiltonian 18:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)