Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Star Wars Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Wars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Star WarsWikipedia:WikiProject Star WarsTemplate:WikiProject Star WarsStar Wars Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Star Wars To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Tag the talk pages of Star Wars-related articles with the {{WikiProject Star Wars}} banner. Update the classification of articles in Category:Unassessed Star Wars articles and Category:Unknown-importance Star Wars articles. Citing sources : Jedi, Sith Cleanup : Remove any In-universe information at Category:Star Wars articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction. Copyedit : Under Early Life. Fix grammar of "towns (plural) predominantly Protestant technical college" to "town's (possessive)..." Stubs : Category:Star Wars stubs Other : * See the things to do page Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability

Internet culture Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

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

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

Why is it that Wikipedia keeps the entry of this guy, but deletes the articles of other famous people like Brian Peppers which are in the same position of being famous due to an embarassing situation? Either keep all of them and destroy their lives by publishing everything about them, or delete them all, but don't be picky. Guest Account 11:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what is the logic of Wikipedia? There ain't none. users think of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, yet by the true sense of the word it isn't. Wikipedia can have a section devoted to the Playboy Playmates with the largests breasts -- but try to create a page with more culturally significant content and see how long it stays up. The issue is not the content, the issue is that Wikipedia is flawed beyond reason.

The problem here is not that a topic is or is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, the problem is a fundamental structural flaw in Wikipedia. Wikipedia presents information by consensus. Enough people stand behind (and protect) the words on a particular page and that page is allowed to stay. Those who want to edit/amend/delete are out of luck if sufficient numbers of those supports work to keep things the way they want it. An encyclopedia is published and the editor and/or publisher stand behind the final product. If information is inaccurate or erroneous or an outright fabrication, there is somebody who has to assume responsibility. With Wikipedia time and again we can see information is erroneous, or misleading, or poorly worded, or an outright lie but if sufficient numbers of people stand behind the page –then it remains. Wikipedia has very clear rules regarding how the system operates, and time and again those rules are sidestepped, disregarded, or bent. The query is valid; If Star Wars Kid is worthy of a Wikipedia entry, then why not a Wikipedia entry for Brian Peppers? However, a more pertinent query might be; what number of Brian Peppers Entry supporters would be required to outmuscle those who oppose the same page? Wikipedia is not about fact – Wikipedia is about consensus. 202.79.62.18 02:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• While I understand the general concern over "rule by consensus", I think one of the reasons wikipedia becomes its own meme is because it does allow for articles such as this... based on notability and cultural influence. It's not trying to be an Encarta clone, nor should it. Articles like this deserve a place on an encyclopedic site, so long as they are NPOV, tasteful, and information that people seek to know. This topic and that of Dog poop girl is also one of socio-legal significance, because they will likely set precedence with privacy laws, which are very slowly evolving to catch up with modern technology. In the end, the wiki is a place for users, by users, and the average reader knows this. Go ahead and nominate it again for deletion, I'm sure it will survive again. --64.253.48.73 06:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a pretty big cultural phenomenon.66.156.29.72 21:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He gets money, an iPod, and world wide recognition. He should be greatful! It was his fault he left the tape behind. If he was really concerned about his fat ass he should have taken the tape. Jesus Christ, why could he take it like the Numa Numa kid?

-G

• Replace recognition with mockery. Also, you're probably the only person in the world who values an iPod over a school degree and respect. Guest Account 11:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Second the above statement, except sadly, I don't think he IS the only youth today who would pick the iPod...and probably one of the major problems with the world today. --64.253.48.73 06:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A) The Numa Numa guy (gary) posted the video himself.
B) The Numa Numa guy also isn't happy with the publicity.
C) What the hell is the point of this article?

Do we really need another page dedicated to releasing all of this kid's personal information? Seriously guys, this has nothing to do with free speach; it's a fat kid waving around a broom. Although, mind you, a couple grand and an iPod would definitely make ME feel a whole lot better.

• ) "The Numa Numa guy (gary) posted the video himself" ... that's the point, dude. The Star Wars kid did not intend for it to be put on the web. Only the people who put the tape on the web are to blame. So an iPod would make you feel better? So what if you had found the kid's tape - would you have put it on the web? If he had left his credit card behind would it be OK for other kids to empty his bank account? Magic Pickle 00:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surely Wikipedia should be more interested in the collation of factual information rather than being 'nice' to people who would rather not be famous by removing some personal details from their entries. What next, nominating pages about sex offenders for deletion because they bring them worldwide humiliation?143.252.80.100 09:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Is there a specific legal or site-ordained policy against revealing a name in this case? If not, I recommend the name of Ghyslain Raza be added to this article. The main source cited by this article (a story by the Globe and Mail) includes the name, so to omit it here is only to obscure the subject of this relevant article. --Nick Douglas 21:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I added this photo to the article, though it may have been a careless mistake. Edit at will. —Joshfist 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would think that instead of contributing to his pain, this article does a fairly good job of fleshing out the fact that this is a real person who was the victim of a very cruel long-term prank. If anything it should help to educate people, and prevent them from sharing the video and laughing at his expense. I am curious, though, about the outcome of the lawsuit? I searched a little bit for the outcome, and couldn't find anything other than announcements that it was filed.Starfoxy 03:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck's the guy's problem, anyway? I would love to have a video seen by millions of people, even if I was somewhat ungraceful in it. Besides, the video's been altered many times to add the lightsaber and wooshing effects, and I would think a true Star Wars fan would think that's pretty freakin' cool. I know I would.

In any event, if he didn't want the video to appear on the Internet, he shouldn't have left it in a studio for months-- or heck, even made the video at all. ekedolphin 18:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In any event, if he didn't want the video to appear on the Internet, he shouldn't have left it in a studio for months-- or heck, even made the video at all" -Eh? Are you seriously suggesting that if you create any private material, you should not be surprised if someone puts it on the internet? So if I broke into your house and stole your videos of your vacation and put it on the internet, you'd just shrug your shoulders and say fair game? Ridiculous. Magic Pickle 21:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's a law stating that the creator of a video owns that video, and if it is stolen from the creator, he still holds copyright. Hence, why we can't use a frame of it as fair use either. Baiter 05:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the video is made with a school camera on a tape that's not yours?

And when exactly did he register a copyright in the USA? Liu Bei 13:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, a copyright is automatic, and does not need to be registered. From the wikipedia article on copyright "In the United States, copyright has relatively recently been made automatic (in the style of the Berne Convention), which has had the effect of making it appear to be more like a property right. Thus, as with property, a copyright need not be granted or obtained through official registration with any Government Office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape or a letter), the copyright holder is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights."

oops, forgot to sign that Baiter 21:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060407.wxstarwars07/BNStory/National/home --Sonjaaa 16:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-hah-hah! That wacky Ghyslain... may the eyes of the media be on him always. -- Bobak 22:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think if the assertion of "cyber-bullying" is going to be made, that the article had better defend it with sources, rather than make an empty assertion. It seems very POV to me. I was not aware that the majority of people who'd ever heard about this video on the Net thought anything bad about it or him. Rather, quite the opposite. Compare Ghyslain's story to Mahir Cagri, who later went on a US concert tour. The question remains why would Ghyslain tape himself and then leave the tape behind if he didn't think he was any good. Here's a tip, if you don't want people to see you, don't record yourself! And if you do, keep the tape! - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-As I said earlier, to imply that personal creations are somehow fair game for others to steal, then we have created a rather strange society. So presumably if you don't want people to read your innermost thoughts, don't write a diary, either. As for cyber-bullying, I think most people who watch the vid are laughing at him, not with him. Mahir is somewhat different, because he's an example of someone picked out for being obscure and eccentric, not for looking silly alone, like SWK. The kid left his tape in a studio - ever thought that he made a silly mistake and simply forgot about it? It's a bit of a leap to suggest he left it there deliberately. If he wanted it on the net he could have put it there himself. Magic Pickle 21:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help build policy at: Wikipedia:Notability (memes). Thank you, --Urthogie 15:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The artist rendition a la "Star Wars Universe"-style books almost made me pee my pants. Is he creature, protaganist, villain? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. I think you need to show a still image of the definitive video with Star Wars Episode I symphony music and added lightsaber visuals and sounds. CJ DUB 20:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I don't think we're on the same line as for sence of humour. That image is cool. -- Face 19:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, the thing that made me laugh the most was the insertion of anal sex under the "see also" section; sadly, I removed it.

...Correction--as I wrote this remark, approximately thirty to forty seconds later, someone else caught the same thing and deleted it!68.20.22.206 18:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC) russ.[reply]

I have had enough with everyone saying that this kid is the "Star Wars Kid".

When, in FACT, he is not imitating Darth Maul.

He is doing an Exhibition Kata from the Sega Dreamcast game "Soul Calibur", with the character "Kilik".

This is not an opinion, this is cold hard fact.

For anyone who has the game, unlock the Exhibition Kata for Kilik, and you will see that the kid was trying to do that.

Numerous times thorought the video this kid held onto one of the ends of his stick. If this were Star Wars, he would have lost his hand because you CAN'T TOUCH THE LIGHTSABER'S LIGHT.

In addition, he did Kilik stances in the video, as well as his DOWN + A+B Stick swinging from side to side.

In addition moreso, he placed one end on the floor to prop it in one of his stances, which you cannot do with a Lightsaber.

Please, for the love of god, stop spreading the lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DARK ANDY (talk • contribs)

O MY GOSH!!!! This changes everything!!!!

Wrong, this changes nothing. He is well known as the Star Wars kid and is famous because of the sfx people have added to the video. Add the information to the article by all means (if you have a source) but it doesn't change the fact he is known as the Star Wars Kid. --Tim ^{(talk), (contribs)} 13:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does change it. If any person reads what I wrote, and then actually sees Soul Calibur's Kilik Exhibition, his/her mind will be changed, as they will know who he is actually imitating.

You fail to see the smaller picture of changing minds one at a time.

--ANDY ^{(talk), (contribs)}

I agree with ANDY, I think we rename this article Soul Calibur Kilik Exhibition Kid. 128.97.156.157 23:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying that it is a Soul Calibur impression, but he is still known as the star wars kid, and wouldn't be famous if it wasn't for the star wars effects added in later by many people. Add the information about Soul Calibur to the article if you want people to know about it. --Tim ^{(talk), (contribs)} 15:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's as clear as you think it is.

First off, people can see the original star wars kid and a Darth Maul fight and Kilik's exhibition for research purposes. (Of course, this material is copyrighted so I don't know if it's welcome on a talk page, but then I've seen links to YouTube showing copyrighted material in articles, so who knows.)

Let me refute your points: it's unclear, if the video is of a Star Wars impression, whether or not the beams of light are supposed to project out the ends of the stick, or if they are part of the stick. You say the kid holds his hand at the end of the stick, which he'd try to avoid if it was the magic light. But if the light came out of the end, it wouldn't be the case. After watching the video a few times I don't remember him having his hand ON the end of the stick, just very near it.

As far as him touching the stick to the ground, well, a light saber can turn off one of its ends. He could just be careless.

It's unclear if his noises in the last part of the video are Kilik's stick whooshing through the air, or the light saber's buzzing/whooshing. Personally it sounds a little more like a light saber to me.

His choreographing is a lot more like Kilik than Darth Maul, but who says it has to be Darth Maul just because he's using a double sided weapon. It could be from a lot of fight scenes, and a lot of it could be original. Also, he never does the over the head nor tapping the ground that Kilik does.

The kid is just having fun with the camera. There is no reason he has to be 100% accurate to the Star Wars universe, nor even close. His carelessness is obvious when he steps on the cloth on the ground and slips.

Any resemblance to Kilik you see could be a coincidence.

I've seen it called a Kilik impression once in YouTube, and two or three times in blogs. Most people think it's a Star Wars impression. (But I was just doing a quick study, nothing in depth.)

So I think that the article should mention that most people believe it's a Star Wars imitation (because it looks quite a bit like one, and it's touted as one, and Soul Caliber isn't as popular so people don't identify with it), and some believe it's a Kilik imitation. See NPOV, No orginial research, and verifiability.

If I were bold enough, and a decent writer I'd edit it myself. Maybe I'll work up the nerve eventually. 70.66.9.162 11:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've posted the wrong Kilik movie. The one you putted here is from Soul Calibur II, which was released in 2003. Ghyslain made his video in November 2002. You need this one from the first Soul Calibur. -- 82.217.240.47 17:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's also been edited into clips from The Matrix, Hulk, Braveheart, etc.... but he's still SWK despite what he was actually imitating. That's what the public at large knows him as, and that's how it will stay regardless of how much you love Soul Caliber. Screw Kilik. --260 22:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone can find a video of said exibition by Kilik to compare, and if it's true i definetly think there sould be a mention of it in the article.

The wording in the section about the lawsuits is a little confusing. Were there 3 or 4 defendants? --Chris Griswold 05:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert did a spoof on this tonite on the Colbert Report. Haha. BlueWiz7 00:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was hardly an impression of Star Wars Kid. Colbert was pointing out how ridiculous the blue (or green) screen usage was in the movies, implying that the actors do any real interaction comparable to the finished CGI production. Pencilneck 17:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looked a lot like a parody of Star Wars Kid to me, and I suspect he and his writers were well aware of it. I realize that he was making a point beyond just impersonating SWK, but he did have inspiration. Vivaldi (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The media sez SWK. -- Zanimum 14:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a neighborhood in Quebec? Please forgive me for not knowing since I live on the other side of the continent in California, USA. But for me the information that he lives in Quebec is all I need to know about the issue. What is the reason for including Trois-Rivieres? It gives me the creepy feeling that it would make it easier for someone to look him up and find him rather than if just Quebec was given. I think it's cool to have an article on the cultural phenomenon of the "Star Wars kid", however when too much personal information is given it gives the wrong impression. I have taken out "Trois-Rivieres" twice and had it put back in again. I will not do anything more about it myself. Steve Dufour 01:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I learned that Trois-Rivières is a town, not a neighborhood. However I still think the same logic holds. Steve Dufour 04:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the NNDB...if that qualifies as a reliable source, then it should be put back in there. Hbdragon88 05:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source is not the issue. The privacy of a child is. Steve Dufour 12:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with you there, Steve. Our concern is simply to repeat and summarise what has already been said elsewhere. We cannot censor the truth, be it for any non-legal reason. We cannot make decisions on content based on morality, compassion or sympathy, as such a decision is necessarily subjective, and objectivism is and always will be the first rule of an encyclopaedia. This article is a biography, and the town in which one lives is, in my opinion, an important fact. This town has been reported as being his by what we consider a reliable source, therefore it's inclusion is wholly justified. Yandman 13:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raza is now 18, based on info in other articles about the court case. He is no longer a child. TheRealFennShysa 16:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But still he is a private, not a public person. I think the article is cool. However his fame is online, not in the physical world. Steve Dufour 04:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trois-Rivieres is a big place, with over 100000 people - I don't think we need to worry about his privacy... it's not like we're handing out his home address. Themindset 16:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the article with this. Things like "The tape was left in the basement" "It was downloaded many times" counts as original research. -- Selmo ^(talk) 19:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Brolsma has posted a video on YouTube in which he spoofs the Star Wars kid. link —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.47.216.137 (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Pretty much everyone. . . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.62.110 (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think Hodgemens's reference is to fan films such as Ryan vs Dorkman and the like . . . http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=672422470842718521 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.62.110 (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I added back the cultural references, though upon re-reading them they could certainly use some cleaning up. I just feel without the cultural references it is difficult to determine what separates the star of this Internet video from the several thousand non-notable Internet videos out there. 138.217.252.28 02:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overweight and all? Cause people like this I feel sorry for, and I wanted to know if he's okay. And if he is, shouldn't that be in the article?--24.22.212.250 23:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ummm ... that makes a lot of sense. You think we should update this page with his current weight? And you feel sorry for "people like this"? Might I suggest some more time spent away from the computer, you know, getting out and meeting people? Hu Gadarn 22:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a brief scene in the "White & Nerdy" video where weird Al is parodies this kid.

The article says the settlement amount was around $150K Canadian, then that it was around $300K Canadian. Which is it?? 68.20.26.208 04:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if we cant laugh at our selfs who can we laugh at...star wars kid!!!

I took out the photo needed tag. If someone's notable for having embarrassing pictures of himself spread on the Internet, we should not spread more pictures and embarrass him further. If the letter of the rule doesn't say this (BLP comes close, but has a loophole), we should use IAR and common sense and not include a picture. Ken Arromdee 18:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all personal references to the identity of the child (he was fourteen at the time, I believe) from this article. It is not necessary for an encyclopedia to refer to the actual identity of a person in describing an internet meme, and as a top ten website we have an ethical responsibily to avoid invading the privacy of this person. Please don't restore the references without discussion, and please, not without strong justification. Some of the sources cited in this article identify him by name, so I'm not preventing anyone who needs to know finding his identity. I'm just stopping Wikipedia being one of the websites that needlessly hangs an albatross around this blameless young man's neck because of the acts of thoughtless individuals.

There are sourcing problems with this article, but for the sake of clarity I'm not addressing them in this edit. --Tony Sidaway 05:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made some more tentative edits. I removed the US dollar sums because he's Canadian and there's no reason to believe that any given reader will be helped by seeing amounts in US dollars in brackets after the Canadian sums. I removed some references to blogs, which frankly looked as if they were there to promote the blog sites. I removed most of the external links because we're not really a link site. Please leave a note here if you decide to add stuff back. --Tony Sidaway 06:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These were helpful edits which improved the overall quality of the article, thank you Tony. Burntsauce 22:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was any Wikipedia policy or guideline followed when this decision was made? I'm under the impression that this move is against WP:NOT#CENSOR; similar articles on internet memes (including Bus Uncle, a featured article) has displayed the name, including background on the subjects. --Madchester 19:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this against WP:NOT? I think unless there is some pressing reason (which I can think of none) we don't need to list personal info about the dude. --Chuck Sirloin 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the attempt to catalog the meme's impact on popular culture, particularly on TV comedy.

We have this section in the article:

The video and its subsequent popularity spawned many spoofs on television, including episodes of the Cartoon Network's animated series The Venture Bros. (Tag Sale -- You're It!), Dark Oracle ("Paintball Wizard"), and Arrested Development ("The Immaculate Election", "Sword of Destiny," "Prison Break-In,", "Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide" and "The Ocean Walker"). In 2005, CNET listed the Star Wars Kid as #8 on its Top 10 Web Fads list.[5], while in 2007, the G4 tv show, Attack of the Show, rated it the number 1 viral video of all time.

I can see that we have a reference for CNET there, and the Attack of the Show rating, and we have a screenshot for Arrested Development. But the rest are just the names of TV series (and in some cases, the names of single episodes, which is helpful).

I think the problem I see here is that they're just episode names, and there isn't any source for the suggestion that these have been significant references to Star Wars Kid or have had any impact outside the viewership of those programmes. I want to conservatively trim this down to what we can verify, really. At present, this would probably be only the CNET and Attack of the Show references. It seems to me that these in themselves provide adequate context to the meme's penetration, whilst the list of individual shows are effectively raw data and there's no real encyclopedic point in just cataloguing them. --Tony Sidaway 13:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to some extent. What is left is from an attempt on my part to narrow down a REALLY long trivia list into a coherent paragraph, keeping only a couple of examples of the range of types of shows that featured spoofs. I think that having a nicely written paragraph can fend off many of the attempts to tack on all the more useless drivel while still showing that the video had a wide impact on television shows produced during the period. --Chuck Sirloin 15:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I see in that list is really not much use to me; I'm British and few if any of those those programmes listed are popular enough to be well known here. The Venture Bros, I'm informed by its article, is broadcast on cable on Bravo here. Dark Oracle Oracle doesn't seem to have made it out of Canada. Arrested Development is popular enough to have made it to the UK's least popular terrestrial channel, BBC 2, where is sank without trace. This isn't like Ricky Gervais clowning around with a light saber. In fact it seems quite possible that the programmes here were being targeted specifically towards an internet meme-aware segment of the youth market, and in doing so they didn't get far outside their home audience. On the other hand I could be quite wrong in this--but who's to say? The raw data by itself isn't as much us as the CNET and Attack of the Show evaluations, which place the phenomenon as an internet meme rathet than a cultural touchstone, although it was obviously a very popular one. --Tony Sidaway 17:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why is the Youtube link directing to a video with an ebaumsworld watermark? it seems wrong --89.180.154.117 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article has been censored way too much. His name should be included. I don't subscribe to the argument that including his name is "invading his privacy" or hurting him in any way. Also on this talk page people are talking about how he had a mental breakdown and went to an insane asylum or something. But the article doesn't include any of that information. Also any information about bulling by his classmates is missing. What was the law suit actually for? Stealing the tape? Is embarasing somebody actually illegal in Canada?The Goat 15:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think not including his not only pathetic as it is also censorship and therefore probably illegal. --89.180.154.117 21:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which jurisdiction? By what law? --Iamunknown 21:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Probably illegal"? Um... Wikipedia is a private organization, which can host whatever it wants on this site. Neither you nor anybody has freedom of speech on somebody else's servers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but isn't Wikipedia an encyclopedia? Doesn't it have the duty to relay any notable information to it's readers? I mean, if we're going to omit this kid's name from this article why don't we just go over to the Fuck article and blur out all the bad words? And yes, his name is notable, it wasn't someone than shot Kennedy or someone that attacked Pearl Harbor, it was actual individuals. What next? Are you going to write in the preamble of the Dynamite article that a person invented Dinamyte but he's kind of ashamed of it so we won't put his name here, for his sake. --AnY FOUR! 01:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 01:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The examples you give don't apply because this kid is no where near the level of importance as the things you mention and his name is really of no consequence. --Chuck Sirloin 00:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't include any of that information (breakdowns etc) because no one has a verifiable source for them per the rules governing biographies of living persons. --Chuck Sirloin 00:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(the above argument started off on a pretty bad foot, and I just stumbled back to this article for the first time in ages after wanting to show some coworkers the background on this character, so I've decided to start a sub-section within this point) I thought The Bus Uncle (which is FA) is a decent model for how the real name can be tucked where it at least contributes to the history and/or background players in the article. After all, he sued his tormentors, he's put himself into the news with his real name. I'm not saying re-title the article, or even put his name at the top, but I cannot see the reason for not including his name at all. This is a bit troubling, just because it's "sad" doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. I think the very notion of this noble but misplaces respect is POV on its face --when did Wikipedia start offering favors? I'm sure Gary isn't thrilled about being mentioned in Numa Numa. --Bobak 21:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no legitimate reason to ban his name from inclusion in this article. Wikipedia is not censored. dcandeto 13:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dcandeto 13:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not going to happen. This matter is closed, unless circumstances change in the future with regards to the person's encyclopedicity. FCYTravis 16:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]