I noticed an interesting juxtaposition above. Star Wars Kid, and the glaring lack of the real name, was brought up. Charles stated above that NPOV is not negotiable. I would hope, then, that he is entirely for including the name in this article. The absolute overwhelming majority of reliable sources reporting on the Star Wars Kid incident used his real name. By failing to follow that lead, we are pushing a POV, that POV being "They were wrong to publish that." Pushing a POV by silence or removal is no more acceptable than pushing it by what we do write. Given the number of sources which have so chosen to report, that is clearly a minority, fringe POV, and has no place dominating an article. Here, we have a real situation where NPOV and (the expanded version of) BLP have come into conflict. BLP used to mean, very simply, "You want to say something negative or controversial about a living person, you must source it very well." Those of us who had misgivings about creep, especially given the proposed strict enforcement, were given assurances that it would never go beyond this narrow scope. Yet, here we have a piece of information which can be very, very reliably sourced, is not negative (it is a simple statement of simple fact), and is reported in the overwhelming majority of sources on the matter. NPOV would demand that we follow the lead of those sources and include the name, regardless of whether we personally agree, just as we always follow sources whether or not we personally agree. Yet we are seeing an expanded, creeping interpretation of BLP used to state that this information should be kept out. And now we are seeing an expanded "enforcement" provision come into place. I think, before we worry about -enforcing- BLP more strictly, it needs a good reining in. It needs to be strictly defined as "no unsourced negative information," and perhaps "no undue weight to negative information." NOR should already serve to protect "privacy." If something hasn't already been published in a publicly available source, we can prohibit it under NOR, if it has, there's no privacy to protect. -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.