Talk:Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc.

BLP1E

"Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." 87.112.182.67 (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

But she's not a single event; the question is whether she is also additionally notable as an actress for having appeared in such films as Gingerdead Man 3: Saturday Night Cleaver (Sandy) and Hoodrats 2: Hoodrat Warriors (as Ghetto Girl Three)... you get the idea [1] I am not a dog (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Not BLP1, She has multiple screen credits.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

But multiple credits does not necessarily mean notable. WP:NACTOR says that there are 3 criteria for notability:

• Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
• Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
• Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

I think she fails the first because although she has been in a good number of films/shows, the ones she is in are either not particularly notable (correct me if I'm wrong - I have not heard of a lot of these), or for those that are notable, she has only a small part in them (see the numerous credits as "woman", "friend #1", "slapping girl", etc). As for having a large fanbase per the second criteria, I can't find any evidence to support this. For the third... er, no. 87.112.182.67 (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because you haven't personally heard of the films does not necessarily mean that the films were not notable, nor that the actress is not notable. In fact, according to her page at IMDB, she has had numerous film and television appearances. If she didn't have a large fan base before yesterday, she certainly does now.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Which films do you feel are notable and why do you think she has a large fan base? 87.112.182.67 (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

A large fan base implies that there are a large number of people who will go see her movies because she is in them. There are now more people interested in her than there were two days ago, but I'm not sure that means that they are fans of her as an actress. (She might have acquired some fans of her litigation activity since yesterday, meaning people who disapprove of IMDb's age policies who support her suing IMDb, but that's not the same as being a fan of her movies.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to say I feel pretty strongly that she fails on all counts r.e. notability. This actress has almost exclusively been seen in bit parts in niche (small market) films and some re-enactment/"reality" t.v. shows. Most of her credits are for un-released short films and un-aired sitcom pilots. This is not to say she's a bad actress, simply that she's a barely-seen, rarely-heard actress, and not notable. (Sidebar: when you sign up for IMDBPro, your date of birth is (or in any event was when I subscribed) among the information that's required on the information/listing form, so I don't expect this lawsuit to go very far anyway) Snozzwanger (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Date of birth?

Why is her date of birth not given in the article? It is freely available in several reliable sources, it is highly relevant, and that is really all that is needed for it to be included in an article. The Wikimedia Foundation has its own lawyers who evaluate the legality of BLP info; this is not for individual WP editors to assess. Lampman (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Added, but a better source than IMDB should be used. Could you provide a reliable source then?--JOJ ^Hutton 16:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Done – Chicago Tribune. Lampman (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection

As the admin who semi-protected this page, I admit that the semi-protection was preemptive (no vandalism had occurred yet). Therefore, I have no objection to any other admin reducing the duration of semi-protection, if they think that a shorter period of semi-protection is needed, or none at all. Just let me know if you do so; you don't need my permission. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Not just a transient news article

This is a lawsuit. Perhaps it is better to say it is a 'transient lawsuit' since it has been dismissed. It does however bring up the question of what information a website can publicly give about a person whose life might depend on whether that information is public or private. I think the judge probably sided with common sense (age is not enough of a 'private' fact, especially since such things as birth certificates, tax forms, and passports are public information). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daydreamer302000 (talk • contribs)

Just for accuracy, the lawsuit has been re-instated, this time in her own name, so all of the above applies and is consequently on-going... Watch this space! Manxwoman (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know why one would say that "tax forms" are public information. You don't have the right to get a copy of my tax return. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Born 1945

Some source say that Junie Hoang, aka Huong Hoang, was born in a village outside of Saigon on January 2, 1945. Happy (belated!) 67th birthday Junie! Can this be included in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.71.14.120 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Details and sources

A couple news reports that spell out a little more clearly the wrongdoing she's alleging, and some of IMDB's position: New York Times (March 4, 2012); and Variety (March 19, 2013). Basically, she's saying that IMDB used her registration info to get her full name (in violation, she says, of her agreement with IMDB), and then used that to go to credit-card databases and the like to get her birth date. IMDB is claiming that first, she lied and then gave fake ID to show a different age, and then asked for the wrong age she gave to be removed; and that as part of that, she asked them to provide evidence of her actual age (which they say authorized them to search). Nuanced and a bit complex, and worth setting out accurately and carefully to make sure we stay within WP:NPOV. Until today, it sounded like she was just complaining that IMDB had posted some truthful information about her, without any mention of what she's really complaining about. I've updated it some, but it needs some more, written both carefully and accurately. I'm unable at the moment to address this, but will in a day or two if no one else does. TJRC (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Birth date again

The Guardian are saying she's currently 42. Span (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful to gather all the sources for her birthdate so we can try to make sense of them. --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

IMDb states she was born "July 16, 1971 in Saigon, Vietnam", and Hoang's not disputing the date given on IMDb as far as I can tell. The BBC follows the IMDb and states "Junie Hoang's IMDb profile continues to list her true date of birth - 16 July 1971". As the Guardian doesn't give an alternative date, it is most likely that they simply can't count. BabelStone (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Moved from External links section - case files

Moved from the article, in case someone wants to use them as sources. Note that links to the individual parties' websites in inappropriate per WP:ELNO. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

In the Northern District for California

• Doe v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., original complaint (October 13, 2011)
• Doe v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., order dismissing original complaint (December 23, 2011)
• Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., first amended complaint (January 6, 2012)
• Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., order dismissing some claims (March 28, 2012), via Santa Clara University School of Law's Digital Commons
• Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., order dismissing all remaining claims except the breach-of-contract claim against IMDb (March 18, 2013)

In the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

• Huong Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc. and IMDb.com, Inc. no. 13-35390 (9th Cir.)(docket from Justia)
• Huong Hoang v. IMDb.com, no. 13-35390 (9th Cir. Feb. 6, 2015)(oral argument)
• Huong Hoang v. IMDb.com, Inc. no. 13-35390 (9th Cir.)(opinion of the court)

I'm restoring the case file links. They're of substantial value to Wikipedia readers who use this article as a starting point to aid in their research. Moving them exclusively to the talk page makes them available to editors to use as sources (although as primary sources, that's actually discouraged), but readers should have them available as well. Any researcher would want to be able to read these documents for themselves, and they meet all three criteria specified in WP:EL: accessible, proper content (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.); and functional.

Per WP:BRD, please make the case for their removal and obtain consensus if you still think they should be removed.

Although I see nothing in WP:ELNO that says parties' websites should not be included, I'm less convinced that they are particularly helpful in the context of this article, so I'm neutral on their deletion and will therefore not restore them. At least for the defendants, the links are available on their individual articles. TJRC (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Given the ongoing lawsuit, I think it might be worth retaining until it is settled.

For future reference, note that the consensus for external links rests on those seeking inclusion, and they should remain out until that consenus is found, per WP:ELBURDEN. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)