Talk:Benjanun Sriduangkaew

RequiresHate

Benjanun Sriduangkaew is also known as RequiresHate/Winterfox/etc. I don't normally edit wikipedia, so I'm not sure about the proper way to add this to the article. Under a heading of aliases? Controversy? 73.173.44.86 (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC) Please note that I've removed certain details about what Sriduangkaew is alleged to have done; this is because we would require IMPECCABLE sources for statements like those. DS (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll handle it. (I was actually going to handle it earlier, but I had to go out this evening.) DS (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is the most extensive posting to date on the controversy, with several big names in the sf/f world discussing it in the comments section: http://laurajmixon.com/2014/11/a-report-on-damage-done-by-one-individual-under-several-names/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.250.69 (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd read Mixon's summary earlier today. The thing is that the majority of the statements there are... not the sort of thing Wikipedia can use. I realize that my phrasing is probably a lot tamer than some people might like, but it's crucial that we do this properly. My phrasing is not only factual, it's absolutely supportable. DS (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: Thanks for the cleanup, but I still think that we don't have adequate BLP-compatible sourcing for this material yet. The problem is that all sources are self-published ones, and even though they are by well-known people in the field, WP:BLPSPS forbids their use as a source for statements about living people:

"Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject."

The only not self-published source is the Guardian article, but it does not mention Sriduangkaew and is therefore not useful as a source. This means that we can't write anything about Sriduangkaew's alleged pseudonymous Internet activities unless they are reported by a reliable source with editorial oversight. As a matter of caution, I am removing the material pending consensus about how to address the matter.  Sandstein  10:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: In reply to your comment "Ansible? File 770?" on my talk page: It appears that "Ansible" is a newsletter written by David Langford, it doesn't seem to have any other editorial staff and is therefore a self-published source. "File 770" also basically looks like a one-man blog. These aren't appropriate sources for BLP content, in my view, especially for allegations of serious wrongdoing. We need to wait until a professionally-staffed news outlet reports about this.  Sandstein  14:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. How about Sriduangkaew's apology for having been RH, posted on her own blog? DS (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, the problem with that is that it does not say what it is she apologizes for. She does not mention any of the online personas or acts these other reports associate her with, and therefore the blog post can't be used to support any of the material that was previously in the article. We probably do need to wait on a third-party source to report on this and bring everything together.  Sandstein  22:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice she refers to "this attempt to sic Vox Day on me", linking to a screencap (on her own hosting) of a Twitter conversation wherein James Worrad tries to stir up conflict between Vox Day and Requires Hate. The only plausible parsing of that sentence is that Sriduangkaew is referring to RH as "me". Therefore, Sriduangkaew is identifying herself as RH. DS (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, but then we would still have negative material in a BLP article based only on self-published sources and our own conjecture. I'm not saying any of this is factually wrong or shouldn't be mentioned, but that I' m not comfortable with the sourcing yet.  Sandstein  06:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we should ascribe any of the alleged results to Sriduangkaew. Just that we should mention that she is the controversial blogger known as RH. Use the self-published sources to show that she's controversial. And we can then use the Guardian to show that RH is also known as ACrackedMoon. DS (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with chaining sources together in a manner that looks very much like original research. The net effect on the reader would be too much like "this talented author is also an Internet troll and here are a bunch of blogs to prove it". I'd prefer to hear the opinions of others as well.  Sandstein  14:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Sandstein here. Reliable third-party sources may emerge that discuss this incident; right now we seem to be at the stage of "primary sources and original synthesis". If this controversy really is notable enough for inclusion in the biography, we'll have to show that someone outside the blogosphere cared. Huon (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, how about this: Nick Mamatas — her publisher — posted on Ello that "Benjanun Sriduangkaew used to blog under the name Requires Only That You Hate." This is what triggered everything, actually. DS (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Self-published source again, not useful. Nobody really doubts the accuracy of all this, we just need a reliable source with third-party editorial oversight.  Sandstein  05:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

How about this source (dailydot)? 67.169.98.185 (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think the Daily Dot is a source that now allows us to cover this, what do others think?  Sandstein  06:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If it's purely about having a source that holds editorial responsibility it looks fine, but the content is essentially a rehashing of what people have said - chaining together sources, as you put it! It also mentions three people as the source of the claim that BS is RH - one who had various suspicions and told others, one of those people who was told, and another author. It specifically says that neither of the latter two provided any evidence for the claims (and the first account looks entirely circumstantial). But despite this the rest of the article (and this wiki entry) explicitly states that BS is RH. Admittedly from the vague apologies posted on BS's and RH's blogs it does look likely, but as far as sources go I wouldn't personally want to cite this one for that particular claim. Redset (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the part that says intimidating rhetoric and criticism was aimed at "writers who are young, female, or persons of color" - it implies people were intentionally targetted as members of those groups, which is misleading given RH was heavily focused on criticising negative and problematic portrayals of those groups (as well as other minorities). The sentence lacks any context and seems intended to mislead the reader. Given that some of her attacks and criticism were on minority authors, but in the context of their work and depictions of minorities (often of other groups, e.g. a poc's attitude towards same-sex relationships), if it needs specifically mentioning at all it should be placed in the wider picture. Redset (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Though I understand your concern, the Mixon study does show that the statement you deleted was, in fact true; the RequiresHate claimed to by "Asian/Asian" (her words), many of her targets were members of these groups whom she singled out. Rather than delete the sentence (which smacks of defending RH) I think it might be better to expand its context to prevent the misunderstanding you describe. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Well that's why I said it needs to be put into context, if it's mentioned at all. The framing of these kinds of statements is crucial if we're attempting to maintain neutrality, it's not merely about whether the statement is true or not. Selectively putting forward some "facts" to encourage a certain impression is a common way to attack a person, especially people who fight on some principle, painting them as someone who's prejudiced against a group when they actually attack that prejudice. Given that the only reason this section is being updated is because of this whole 'unmasking' of RH, there's going to be a tendency for people to try and exact payback. That's not what Wikipedia is for and it's important to be vigilant in situations like this, especially given the lack of concrete proof tying these online identities to this author. Redset (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Notability

Some determination should be made as to whether this author is notable enough for inclusion separate from the notoriety for which BLP-acceptable sources are lacking. She was nominated for the Campbell Award. Her bibliography on ISFDB is here: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?182204.

Is that enough to merit inclusion without reference to the much more notable controversy? What is the best way to resolve that issue? One possible venue would be AfD.

Or should the article be retained in the expectation the BLP-acceptable sources will eventually appear?

(Note: I happened across this via the referrer logs on my blog. I agree with the ruling that using my blog as a citation for the controversy is not adequate for BLP standards.) Pleasantville (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I think there's coverage enough to meet WP:GNG, such as a review and other coverage on Tor.com (search for "Sriduangkaew", the URL can't be reproduced in Wikimarkup), and an interview on Strange Horizons. I advise against AfD at the moment, as discussion there will certainly involve the controversy and may lead to WP:BLP violations in the course of the discussion as long as we don't have good sources for that.  Sandstein  17:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

On a quick glance at this issue: If she is going to have an article, the controversy (even if it proves to be unfounded) is deserving of inclusion as a notable event in her public life. Even if it's not mentioned, the current stub seems consistent enough with what we have with various other published, but not big-name, authors. What we can't, and shouldn't, do is have an article which disproportionately focuses on notable peoples' criticism of her, and is sourced primarily from those peoples' blogs. Again, I'm just now looking at this, and I'll admit to having some involvement in the science fiction community, so I may well be biased, and I'm hesitant to make sweeping or absolute statements. Pakaran 02:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Notability: it is extremely likely that the subject will be considered notably -- and possibly of historic importance -- in light of the recent trolling episodes. A difficulty for the moment is that these revelations have not yet appeared in many places that are WP:RS.

One potentially useful source is the web magazine revival of Amazing Stories: http://amazingstoriesmag.com/2014/11/damage-done-sf-sf-age/ MarkBernstein (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Biography

Do we have a reliable source for any of the biographical details? The reference to "author query" seems tenuous. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed.  Sandstein  21:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I am wondering about this as well, I just became aware of this individual & the controversy, and saw it noted in several places that the name "Benjanun Sriduangkaew" appears to be another pen name. No real name is known, and all biographical details come from interviews with "her" (I have found speculation that this might not even be a woman). I have looked around and can find no photos, no face to face interviews (it all seems to be online) and no public appearances. Given the documented history of fake online identities, I'd argue any details coming from this person should be considered highly suspect.JamesG5 (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Ansible

I believe Ansible is a WP:RS. It’s a small specialist magazine, but has been published since 1979 (!), has won multiple Hugo awards. It is formally a "semiprozine" in SFWA terms, which means that it has an established editorial process and pays for contributions, though not at full market rates. (Many WP:RS magazines pay similar rates.) See http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/ansible_publication. Perhaps @Pleasantville or @OrangeMike know of precedents for whether or not Ansible is a WP:RS? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

But it is a one-man project by David Langford, right? How is that not a WP:SPS?  Sandstein  21:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It’s certainly a small operation, and strongly flavored by its editor in chief. It does appear to rely on stable of writers and correspondents, and its history and reputation are formidable. We could wait for Locus, I suppose, but it’s not clear to me that Locus is a more reliable source. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

But which people other than Langford are involved in editing it?  Sandstein  06:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems like a perfectly decent source and to remove the information right away seems a bit excessive. Instead, it could be kept and the article tagged as possibly containing unreliable sources, allowing editors to bring forth better or newer sources for the material. It appears to be quite widely reported, so I doubt it would be much of a problem. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no rush; we'll doubtless have coverage in Locus presently, perhaps at Tor.com, and very conceivably elsewhere. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a rush to remove unreliable sources. "Contentious material about living persons (...) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (WP:BLP).  Sandstein  07:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Relax: Sandstein, I was agreeing with you. There's no likelihood of dispute or contention, but there's no great hurry either. MarkBernstein (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sandstein seems not to understand that Locus and Ansible are considered gold-standard reliable sources in the field of science fiction culture and fandom. Their reputations are impeccable and of decades' standing. You may shout SPS! all you want; but the fact is that this is a case where WP:IAR may be the more relevant guideline to follow. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No, we don't ignore the BLP policy under any circumstance, and people who do may find themselves sanctioned rather quickly, see WP:NEWBLPBAN.  Sandstein  04:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, guys. I believe you are each admins, right? I'm confident you both know about BLP and SPS and sanctions and all that. What might not be obvious at first glance is that (as I understand it) OrangeMike is something of an expert in this area of literature. Corners of the publishing industry have complex customs and constraints; we consider the New York Times reliable because it is edited and because of its reputation, but we also consider (say) Journal Of The American Chemical Society reliable because it's peer-reviewed, something else entirely. I hold no particular brief for or against Ansible in principle, but we ought to find some good solution to the sourcing conundrum. (For example: I believe self-published sources are considered reliable for non-controversial information: at need, we can source a subject's middle name or birthday from their web site. Might that be useful here? (Please don't bite the non-admin!) MarkBernstein (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not biting anyone ... but I don't see the conundrum. It's just a fact of Wikipedia life that nothing remotely controversial (i.e., nothing to do with the Internet trolling stuff) goes into a BLP article that is not based on reliable published sources, which explicitly excludes self-published sources. The reputation of these sources in the field of sci-fi literature doesn't matter, because the reason why self-published sources are not appropriate sources for BLP is that they do not have a system of editorial oversight and responsibility and no fact-checking mechanism that consists of more than one person reading a text before it goes live.  Sandstein  17:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there controversy about the subject’s internet trolling? I’ve read fairly deeply on the subject because I've been involved with research work on trolls, but I've not seen such controversy. Perhaps I missed something? (There is a slight controversy over whether the subject of this article actually exists -- whether there is somewhere a person who is known by this name to her friends and neighbors, or whether the name we use here is another pseudonym. But there's no RS for that controversy.) MarkBernstein (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, "contentious" is the word the policy uses - not necessarily being actively contested as to its truth, but liable to be subject to contention and indeed possibly libelous if incorrect - hence required to be absolutely verifiable.  Sandstein  15:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Online Activity In The Lede

It appears to me that the subject’s online activity is, at this point, a sufficiently important part of her career and her notability as to deserve mention in the lede. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

What you wrote seems reasonable to me.  Sandstein  19:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

What is her real name?

It seems that this is an alias. 31.54.59.160 (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If her name is not in fact "Benjanun Sriduangkaew", I'm not aware of any information in reliable sources as to what her real name is. DS (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

As I noted above Talk:Benjanun_Sriduangkaew#Biography there are also no reliable sources I'm aware of that say "Benjanun Sriduangkaew" is her real name, in fact there're a number of sources which indicate that's likely a pseudonym. As she notoriously uses false IDs her own word can't be counted on. I'd argue (since there are plenty of sources all IDing her as the same not-"Benjanun Sriduangkaew" person but none of those sources are reliable) that it should be noted as a likely pseudonym. JamesG5 (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Which sources say it's a pseudonym?  Sandstein  05:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It's in at least one of the sources cited for this article, http://www.dailydot.com/geek/benjanun-sriduangkaew-revealed-to-be-troll-requires-hate-winterfox/ "On the one hand, Sriduangkaew, who has claimed to be a Thai-born Thai writer who is ethnically Chinese" (with "claimed" being a link going to a discussion questioning this), and "Is Sriduangkaew even who she says she is—a Chinese-Thai Asian writer? Or is that identity, too, simply another persona, as Andreadis and Loenen-Ruiz, and others have speculated, for an unknown writer exploiting social justice ideals to build a career?" Unfortunately there aren't a lot of RS for this, but a review of the sources for the article show that almost none of them meet RS regardless. However, a little research on what's available shows that no one's ever met ""Benjanun," she's never been photographed, never done a public event, etc. The claim that she's a young Thai woman by the name of "Benjanun Sriduangkaew" is entirely a product of her own claim to her publisher. Given her admitted use of multiple fake personae that calls the veracity of the name & identity in to question. It's noted [[1]] that before the name appeared a limited partnership was created under the name (and some of the names registering it are linked in speculation about her actual identity) so pay records & such don't even go to a real person, but to that partnership. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy is here, but if there's no evidence someone exists at all other than their claim online to do so should the name they claim automatically be given credence? Leading up to the Hugo her claim to fame was internet drama about her use of false identities, and the one she finally claimed was never proven, the controversy that made her famous denied it. So I don't know. JamesG5 (talk) 06:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hm, we could write something like "In reporting on her online activities, the Daily Dot wrote that it is not certain whether or not she is indeed a Thai writer, or whether Benjanun Sriduangkaew is a pseudonym or her real name."  Sandstein  06:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

That's fair, since the Dot article is already the main source for this page. JamesG5 (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sandstein: - This is actually worth adding, and we didn't already have it. I've put that text in. Blythwood (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2017

1. Please change the first line of the entry from: Benjanun Sriduangkaew is a Thai[1] author of science fiction and fantasy, who is also known for controversial online criticism. To: Benjanun Sriduangkaew is a Thai[1] author of science fiction and fantasy. REASON: This is a neutral fact. To have a controversy follow someone even into the very first discussion of their literature is strange.

Per WP:LEAD, the lead section summarizes the topic. Sriduangkaew's online activity is a significant part of her biography as covered by reliable sources, so it should be mentioned in the lead.  Sandstein  14:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

2. Please change the first line of the LIFE section from: Sriduangkaew has said in an interview that she was born in Pattani Province in southern Thailand. To: Sriduangkaew was born in Pattani Province in southern Thailand. REASON: Does wikipedia question where she was born? Normally where someone says they are born is taken and stated as fact.

OK with me.  Sandstein  14:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

3. Please change first line of the ONLINE ACTIVITY Section from: In 2014 Sriduangkaew was revealed to have been the controversial blogger and book reviewer "Requires Hate" (also known as "Requires Only That You Hate", as well as "Winterfox"). To: In 2014 Sriduangkaew was revealed to have been the controversial blogger and book reviewer "Requires Hate" (also known as "Winterfox"). REASON: Her blog was called "Requires Only That You Hate"

OK with me.  Sandstein  14:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

4. Please change second line of the ONLINE ACTIVITY Section from: Using these Internet identities, she published violently intimidating and harsh critiques, which included death and rape threats, of many writers she believed to have paid insufficient attention to racism, sexism, heteronormativity, or colonialism in their fiction. To: Using these Internet identities she published critiques of writers she believed to have paid insufficient attention to racism, sexism, heteronormativity, or colonialism in their fiction. REASON: the description: "violently intimidating and harsh critiques, which included death and rape threats, of many writers" is false and not true. She did not publish death and rape threats or violence or intimidation. I do understand that being critiqued for not paying attention to racism, sexism, heteronormativity, or colonialism in your fiction is upsetting, but defaming someone by falsely claiming they launched death and rape threats is unbelievable.

We are reporting this based on The Daily Dot, a reliable source, which writes: "one whose attacks have been connected to another author’s attempted suicide, as well as numerous rape threats, death threats, and sustained harassment campaigns". On this basis, I believe we are justified to include this description of her activities.  Sandstein  14:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

5. Please remove the third line of the ONLINE ACTIVITY Section from: Many of her targets were themselves young, female, transgender, and/or persons of color. Remove. REASON: This is false.

Also according to the Daily Dot: "The attacks were often aimed at acclaimed writers of color, including author NK Jemisin", and the source also supports the other attributes.  Sandstein  14:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

6. Please add to forth line a fifth line of the ONLINE ACTIVITY Section from: A blog post about Sriduangkaew's behavior by fellow writer Laura J. Mixon[9] won Mixon the 2015 Hugo Award for Best Fan Writer.[10] To: Other writers defended Benjanun Sriduangkaew and explained that Mixon was unfair. REASON: Mixon's blog post is controversial and her winning of the Hugo is also controversial. There are others who support Benjanun and that should be stated in her wikipedia entry.

We must not use self-published material, such as a Tumblr blog, to support content in a WP:BLP article, see WP:BLPSPS. Are there any relable sources for this contention?  Sandstein  14:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

7. Please change the last line of the ONLINE ACTIVITY Section from: In a blog post in 2015, Sriduangkaew wrote that she had become the target of harassment and cyberstalking campaigns after her Internet identities were revealed, while conceding that "I’ve been shitty in the past".[11] To: In a blog post in 2015, Sriduangkaew wrote that she had become the target of harassment and cyberstalking campaigns.[11] REASON: The last part of that sentence and especially that quote are out of context and are crafted in a way as to make it appear that she is admitting to the claims written above. She is not, and all of the nuance in her post is removed in this deliberate misquote. John Pickles (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The quote seems appropriate, it's not out of context. She writes: "Here’s a primer on my situation, written by a friend of mine (I had no part in its contents; I like to think it presents a pretty frank, concise view of things including the acknowledgment that I’ve been shitty in the past)". This directly addresses her online activities as discussed here.  Sandstein  14:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@John Pickles:, please disclose any relationship you may have to Benjanun Sriduangkaew. While we take complaints by the subjects of our articles seriously, we prefer to know that it is they we are talking to.

-Response by John Pickles: I have no relationship to Sriduangkaew. I have never met her or spoken to her online or in person. I have come across her fiction and really enjoyed it. I recommended it to a friend and the first thing she did was google her name and the wikipedia entry came up. It shocked both of us. I can not tolerate false smearing of people and unsubstantiated claims. Ie: If you are going to say she threatened to rape and murder people you had better show me where and when she did so as that is a very serious allegation. I see that there is a large debate in Sci-Fi Fantasy community around race and the Hugo puppies, etc, but maybe that could be its own wikipedia entry and the entry on Sriduangkaew would simply discuss her literature. As it stands this wikipedia entry is like part of a larger battle, but the rest of the context is removed and it just insults one person. The entry should only have neutral verifiable facts.

 Sandstein  13:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: per the arguments made by Sandstein. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Daily Dot article

This page contains a bunch of weaseling over Benjanun’s origins and name. This is based on a Daily Dot article published many years ago. The problem is the Daily Dot article is mostly just regurgitating speculation by other angry authors and contains no real journalism. To that end, instead of trusting The Daily Dot as a reputable source for questioning Benjanun’s origins and name, we should be going to the original sources the article is based on, which is blog posts by other authors.

On the subject of Benjanun’s birthplace, the source for casting doubt is a blog post by Elizabeth Bear (the link is dead but you can find it in the wayback machine). The blog post itself provides no supporting evidence for casting doubt on Benjanun’s origins, it’s just an angry blog post motivated by hate. And in fact the post doesn’t just try to doubt her origins, it tries to claim Benjanun isn’t even a real person at all (which we know is incorrect).

As for her name, besides Elizabeth Bear’s blog post, the article cites another bitter author (Athena Andreadis) who simply says it’s “clear … that BS was not her real name”, without any explanation. But the article contradicts this immediately afterwards by quoting someone else referring to Benjanun as her “real identity”.

Ultimately, the Daily Dot article is a convenient collection of things other authors have said, but as it contains no independent investigation of any of these claims, it should not be treated as an authoritative source on Benjanun’s life.

Lily Ballard (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)