Talk:Big Sister (brothel)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources[edit]

The article could do with more direct citations of the apparent press coverage of this brothel. Kusma (討論) 12:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement?[edit]

I would like to address the recently expressed concern that the article "reads like an advertisement" and need to know which sentences/paragraphs require rewriting. Thanks, AxelBoldt 23:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published source[edit]

Regarding the concern that the link to the "Big Sister Press Room" represents an inadmissable self-published source: the page is nothing but a collection of links to numerous readable/viewable media reports about the brothel, and the point of the reference was to support the statement that the brothel has been the subject of numerous media reports. Would it be preferable to replicate some of the press room links directly in the References section? AxelBoldt 23:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the comment up top. Anyway, if the page is nothing but a collection of links, then it's not much a source, is it? If it's a subject of so much media coverage, then it shouldn't be difficult to build an article based on citations from verifiable sources.
Now, if the source is only there to support the claim that the brothel has been the subject of numerous media reports, then that means the rest of the article amounts to original research or using a self-published source. Either way, none of the information is verified.
And that's the reason I've added the advertising tag as well. Right now, it reads like a press release because it seems all of the information has come from the website itself. I don't know enough about the subject to say how it should be changed or what information needs to be added, but as it is, we have no indication of what makes this brothel/site notable (notoriety? controversy?). Ytny 20:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything you've just said. It's sole claim to "notability" appears to be that it's a brothel whose business activities are recorded for and published on the internet. I argued in the AfD that the 'multiple independent reviews' were trivial and not worthy of the designation. Valrith 21:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have three issues:

  • why is it notable: I don't think there are any reports of controversy surrounding the business. It's the world's first brothel which offers free service, subsidized by paying internet viewers. Because of this unique business model, it has been the subject of international news coverage. Should that be emphasized more, or is it sufficiently clear from the current version of the article?
  • is it original research or is the information taken from the website: everything in this article is taken from independent news articles and TV reports (that are reproduced on the website). Clearly the sources of the individual statements should be better labeled; I'll work on that. The article contains several details that are only to be found in those news articles and not on the rest of the website or any press release: ownership, cost of creation, compensation of the women, contract details, date of opening etc.
  • self-published source: to support the claim that the business has been the subject of numerous international news articles, is it admissable to point to a page on the business's site that contains reproductions of those news articles?

Thanks, AxelBoldt 00:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legality[edit]

"Prostitution is neither legal nor illegal" ? If there's no law that makes it illegal, then it's legal. Valrith 00:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not illegal: you cannot be punished for buying or selling sex. It is not legal: you cannot open a business and officially declare it as a brothel, nor can you officially declare your job as "prostitute" for tax purposes. AxelBoldt 18:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Roth's blog[edit]

Eli Roth is the writer and director of the movie Hostel: Part II, and if he writes on his official blog that part of the movie was shot in Big Sister, then this is important information that should not be hidden from our users. Would it be preferable to mention it in the running text rather than in the reference section? AxelBoldt 18:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name of co-owner restored[edit]

The name of co-owner was removed [1] with the comment "Removed non-notable name per m:OTRS ticket 2007020110017581 and privacy concerns". I restored it: the name of the owner of a business is notable; the co-ownership of Big Sister is a matter of public record as it was published in a major magazine. I don't see any privacy concerns here. Presumably he prefers not to be mentioned in connection with Big Sister, but such a wish cannot be grounds to delete properly cited and relevant information from a Wikipedia article. AxelBoldt 22:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to realize people's names can be googled. If the owner's names were newsworthy then this would merit inclusion. A single instance in a magazine is not worthy of inclusion, especially if we've had BLP concerns with regard to it, and the name itself is not otherwise noteworthy.
This article only survived a nomination for deletion because of no consensus. I'm sorry but your argument does not override the legitimate privacy concerns of the individual. Cary Bass demandez 13:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter why the article survived; it did survive. If you feel like renominating, go ahead. The individual has no legitimate privacy concerns. If he didn't want to be known as the owner of the business he should've stayed out of it. Valrith 15:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is primarily a BLP matter. I was using the article deletion debate to illustrate the lack of notability on the article as a point. The owner's name should not be included in this article. This was removed as a courtesy and you should not reinsert it. Cary Bass demandez 12:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If the owner's names were newsworthy..." The newsworthiness is shown by the facts 1) that it was reported by a news organization and 2) that ownership of a company is in general encyclopedic information contained in most of our articles on companies. The person itself is of course not notable, and therefore does not have nor deserve their own article, but that doesn't preclude their being mentioned in articles where it is relevant.
  • "privacy concerns", "BLP concerns". You have not even attempted to show what these concerns consist in, or whether they are legitimate. In fact they are not: ownership of a company is a matter of public record in pretty much every country, so people could look up that information anyway (with difficulty, admittedly), and therefore there can be no expectation of privacy in this regard.
  • "nomination for deletion". I don't see the relevance of the deletion discussion to the matter at hand. The individual has done everything to generate news coverage about their business, so surely they won't complain about coverage in Wikipedia.

AxelBoldt 16:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* "If the owner's names were newsworthy..." The newsworthiness is shown by the facts 1) that it was reported by a news organization and 2) that ownership of a company is in general encyclopedic information contained in most of our articles on companies. The person itself is of course not notable, and therefore does not have nor deserve their own article, but that doesn't preclude their being mentioned in articles where it is relevant.

The owner's name is not necessary. Privacy concerns take priority over inclusion of unencyclopedic material. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and we have ample precedence whereby non-notable individuals are removed from our encyclopedia. Cary Bass demandez 12:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"privacy concerns", "BLP concerns". You have not even attempted to show what these concerns consist in, or whether they are legitimate. In fact they are not: ownership of a company is a matter of public record in pretty much every country, so people could look up that information anyway (with difficulty, admittedly), and therefore there can be no expectation of privacy in this regard.

The concerns are legitimate. It is through private correspondence with the Wikimedia Foundation. See WP:OTRS. Cary Bass demandez 12:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"nomination for deletion". I don't see the relevance of the deletion discussion to the matter at hand. The individual has done everything to generate news coverage about their business, so surely they won't complain about coverage in Wikipedia.

See my answer above. the deletion debate has everything to do with this. I strongly urge you not to reinsert this name on the article, as explained above. Cary Bass demandez 12:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the ticket in question and I support the removal of the co owner name on the basis of non notability. Marginal cases of notability get decided on the basis of the subject's wishes per BLP, if it is on knife edge and the subject requests removal we do. In this case I don't even see this as knife edge, it's open and shut, the person is not notable based on a single mention in a magazine. I have been mentioned in magazines more than once and I am not notable. I strongly urge you not to reinsert this name into the article. ++Lar: t/c 13:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you own a company which has an article in wikipedia? Sorry, but someone still has to explain me why a crucial detail like the name of one owner of the subject matter of this article has to be left out. I'm pretty sure that there are no legal reasons. --Elian Talk 16:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The weak claim that the article is notable is based on the unique nature of the brothel not who is the owner. Putting the name of a living person in an article against their will should only be done when it is absolutely clear that the article and the person in question are notable. There is good reason to believe this person when they say that the Wikipedia article is causing ongoing disruption in their real life that would not occur if we did not include their name in the article. This itself is a sign that the person's identify is not well know in relation to the brothel and we are promoting the link not merely informing about it. Our job is not to promote information about non-notable people to the point they becomes notable.FloNight 16:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AxelBoldt, please carefully think about how the policy on biographies of living people and notability work together to make the removal of this content the right choice per policy. Take care, FloNight 13:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could explain it to me better, because I don't see which part of that policy applies here. I reviewed BLP and I find it largely useless, since it can be summed up by simply saying Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and No original research, none of which are disputed in our case. The evil and ill-defined word "notable" occurs in that policy only in regards to biographical articles, which we are not discussing here; nobody disputes that the individual is not notable; their ownership relation however is encyclopedic information relevant to the article at hand. Specifically, the sentence "Putting the name of a living person in an article against their will should only be done when it is absolutely clear that the article and the person in question are notable" is nowhere to be found in that policy.

I am still waiting for an explanation of why the individual's expressed wish to have this information removed constitutes a legitimate privacy concern. It is my understanding that without an expectation of privacy there can be no such legitimate concern. If somebody publishes my salary somewhere, then I may be upset, but I certainly cannot complain, since my salary as a state employee is a matter of public record.

It may be true that we often remove such information, and it is certainly also true that we often insert ownership information in company articles. If we want to talk numbers, I'm sure I can present more cases where company articles contain the name of otherwise non-notable owners. Such precedence arguments are fruitless. Please argue based on published policy instead.AxelBoldt 16:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This statement reflects the shift in the way that we now handle requests from living people about information about them in articles. We look at the expressed concern to see if it is valid. The point of the policy about living people is that we hold this information about living people to the highest standard. Further, we interpret the notability policy strictly if harm is being caused by inclusion of the information. We are not in the business of promoting obscure information that causes notability to occur. In this case several people have seen the request and believe that inclusion of the information about this person is causing disruption in their life. That is the reason that it was removed.FloNight 17:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you just linked to your own statement above, "Putting the name of a living person in an article against their will should only be done when it is absolutely clear that the article and the person in question are notable", which is not supported by published policy. It may be true that this is how "you" (I suppose you refer to OTRS people here) handle these matters nowadays, but that of course has no normative force and does not override the overall goal of writing an encyclopedia that informs the reader in a comprehensive manner. Further you refer to a "notability policy" which I don't think exists.
Then you again repeat the claim that the privacy concern be valid, without giving supporting evidence and without addressing the argument that there can be no expectation of privacy in the ownership of a publicly registered company. This is qualitatively different from, say, a porn star working under a pseudonym who has her real name exposed: she has a legitimate privacy concern since she never expected her true name to become known.
Further evidence for the invalidity of the claimed privacy concern is provided by the fact that this indivual, on his own company's website, publishes the article that reports the owner's identity (which is how I learned about it). AxelBoldt 18:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use your own common sense and think beyond this minor detail. The individual does not have to be named in the article. We've had a specific request to the foundation (in private correspondence--go read WP:OTRS) not to include him.
A single article inclusion is not worthy of putting his name here. If the guy doesn't want to be listed here, you have absolutely no right to force it. We don't put every single bit of information about every topic on Wikipedia, notably when non-notable people don't want to be included. Cary Bass demandez 18:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. You know have three (hopefully) well respected editors vouching for the fact that the OTRS ticket exists, and that there is a request to remove the info about a non notable person. This person is not notable, a single magazine article just mentioning a name does not confer notability. This is being discussed on the OTRS list as well and other well respected editors agree that there is no need for this name in the article. I'd prefer not to protect this article, but I will if, the next time I look at it, I see that there has been continued insertion of this name. Leave it out and make the case here that it has to be in, please. The way that we treat names of non notable people IS shifting. For the better. ++Lar: t/c 19:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, I too shall vouch for the existance of the OTRS ticket, and echo Lar's sentiments above. BLP is a serious issue. Martinp23 21:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we are moving in circles. I don't think anybody has ever questioned that the OTRS ticket exists, or that this person does not wish to be mentioned here, or that this person is non-notable. The claim is that the privacy concern is not legitimate, and should therefore carry no veto power over Wikipedia content. Maybe it would help if we invite in some outside commentary from the community at large, lest this issue be decided by OTRS people alone. I will therefore file a RfC and invite everybody to state their opinion below.

I have removed the Request for Comment. This is a cut and dry case and does not merit creating further complication. This Request for Comment is an attempt to press a very bad point. Cary Bass demandez 02:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still trying to hunt down the specific published policy that is being applied here. If you don't think the issue merits discussion, you don't have to participate. But surely you will let the rest of us discuss without removing our Talk page contributions? Thanks, AxelBoldt 02:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it again. This issue really is cut and dried and an RfC is a bad idea from a privacy perspective, as it just draws more attention to a person that wants their privacy and who is not notable enough to warrant even a mention in an article. The privacy concern is legitimate. ++Lar: t/c 04:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep reading the same sentences, but never see supporting arguments.

  • "not notable enough" We mention the owners of businesses all over Wikipedia, even if they are not otherwise notable. As we should, because providing comprehensive information is the responsibility to our readers. Just like we mention the street a business is located at, even if the street is not otherwise notable. The person is not notable, however the fact that they are co-founder and co-owner of a business that's the subject of sustained international press coverage is. Notability is a criterion for inclusion of article subjects (if that), not for every item mentioned in an article. Or else please provide the relevant policy statement.
  • "The privacy concern is legitimate." Repeating it doesn't make it true. You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in matters of public record, especially not if they were also published in a magazine, especially not if you are republishing that magazine article on your own website!

I find it very rude that my Request for Comment is being removed. I'm just trying to follow the published recommendations for dispute resolution. I don't really want to escalate the matter. How should I proceed? AxelBoldt 04:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Axel, please try to understand: this is a very very minor fact, and its iclusion is offensive to the subject, who has asked the Foundation to remove it. Inclusion constitutes undue weight, in the opinion of a fair number of experienced editors, including I think Jimbo, who has ventured an opinion. An RfC will not fix that. The policy on biographies of living individuals will trump any form of rough editorial consensus, and there are several admins who will continue to remove the disputed content and if necessary protect the article whatever is said here. Wikipedia's high profile gives the potential for enormous harm to individuals of borderline notability. Please just drop it, it really is not good. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the question of who is the owner is a pretty relevant fact in an article about a company. While it's a nice thing to be able to answer an email with "we could help you and removed your name", the foundation has to distinguish between legitimate privacy complaints and such which go against the duty of wikipedia to inform the reader. If there are no pressing legal reasons and it concerns a relevant fact to the article, the otrs team should have the strength to deny such a request. --Elian Talk 09:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, the OTRS team did not deny the request, which was reasonable, and therefore the individual has been notified that yes, we'll do that. Furthermore, one doesn't require legal reasons to remove a name. There is something called courtesy. We will continue to act on these courtesies. To continue to deny this courtesy is to perpetuate an ill will. It doesn't matter that the name has been published in a magazine article. It doesn't matter that the article is republished on the website (where the text on the article is inaccessible to googling. It doesn't matter that a search on government business sites will demonstrate the he is the business owner. Ultimately one has to take the consideration that the English Wikipedia is about the number 10 website on the internet and including a person's name to it can create far more chaos in a non-notable person's life than inclusion in a single issue of a magazine like Maxim which is geared toward adults.
Wikipedia has changed since we all started editing and we have to take those changes into consideration. I urge everyone to read through the BLP Noticeboard to see how inclusion in Wikipedia is affecting people's lives. You have to start being careful what you include and exclude. We are not operating in a vacuum any longer. Cary Bass demandez 12:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is indeed policy of the OTRS team to remove verifiable and relevant information involving otherwise non-notable people just for the asking, out of courtesy, even in the absence of a reasonable expectation of privacy, then this should be written down somewhere; I for one didn't know it. Cheers, AxelBoldt 18:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elian and AxelBoldt are, imo, entirely correct. It is entirely preposterous that we should not include the reliably sourced name of a business owner. There is no policy that permits this. I find it even more ridiculous that the RfC process is being subverted to support this unsupportable action. Valrith 04:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, removing the co-owners name from a listing about the business seems rather silly. I've not read anything that justifies that action. The only really justification appears to be "look at the BLP page". But we're not here to make a moral judgement on the facts only to present them, this is a fact, the person is notable in the context of the article. If there is damage to the person in some way then that is because of their involvement and not because Wikipedia chooses to collate the pertinent facts. Pbhj (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bigsisterlive.com[edit]

Can anybody clarify the relationship between bigsister.net and bigsisterlive.com? Both websites seem to offer live streaming video and video archives of the same girls in the same rooms. It would be worth adding to the article, if only we could know what the "live" site actually is! Also, the link to the Big Sister fan club is dead. Does that mean that the fan club is also dead? --83.70.236.74 (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Company vs brothel vs location[edit]

The article doesn't make a clear distinction between the location (building), the brothel operating within the building and the company running the brothel (who may or may not own the building I'm not sure). It seems to have a lot of unnecessary detail too whilst omitting the names of one of the business owner it goes on to tell us what the brothel's nightly program is, strange. Pbhj (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really a brothel?[edit]

If the persons coming there to have sex doesn`t pay, is it really correct to call it a brothel? Wouldn´t it be more correct to call it a place where they make porn? This is not really prostitution, but pornography, as far as I can understand and therefore other laws applies. To call it prostitution/ a brothel is totally POV/orignial research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.127.4 (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you. If it were, making porn videos would be illegal anywhere prostitution is illegal. You could do this is in L.A. and it would not be prostitution--though calling the place a brothel would be inviting trouble, which, by the way, they did. They may be mistaken (intentionally so, for the sake of drawing in the unpaid "actors") in calling it a brothel, but they have so in that sense it's not OR for us to call it what they call it. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Originally posted as an original query above, subsequently edited and reposted in response to 84.210. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closure[edit]

Why did it close? Jim Michael (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big Sister (brothel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Big Sister (brothel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Sister_(brothel)&oldid=1206295701"