Jump to content

Talk:Zoë Quinn

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

Holowka allegations

@HC7: Over at WP:BLPN, there's an ongoing discussion regarding whether or not the allegations are even warranted for Holowka's page. It seems like this is really stretching for notability. Also: I have no idea what his death has to do with Quinn, but the placement in the article seems to imply some kind of connection between the accusation and the death, which is utterly unsupported by reliable sources. Nblund talk 21:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I say to wait until the Holowka issue is resolved at WP:BLPN before we even start talking about this.--Jorm (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've just reverted an addition of this topic, on the basis that: a) the inclusion in the lead section was UNDUE; b) particularly as it focused on recent events (WP:RECENTISM), and; c) it will need a better source than that which was provided, an op-ed in RT. - Ryk72 talk 09:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I still haven't seen high quality sources saying the death was a suicide, and the most recent coverage from the BBC doesn't mention Quinn. I posted this elsewhere, but media guidelines for covering suicide recommend against this kind of oversimplification of the reasons for a persons death. If sources are saying "Quinn made him kill himself" they're probably not reliable. Nblund talk 13:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the recent tragic event involving Alec on August 31, 2019, will we be permitted to cover events related to that event--as reported by the news media in relation to Zoe--on Zoe's page, as we would if this page belonged to someone other than Zoe?

Thank you. -Phone Charger (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, if the coverage is sourced reliably and it falls into due weight. If she's barely mentioned, then probably not. At most, this might support a sentence somewhere, but nothing more than that as his death is not, you know, about Zoe.--Jorm (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly no conspiracy theories.--Jorm (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we can add information that information that is in accordance of Wikipedia's core policies. But I get the sense from your other edits here that you might not have a clear grasp of those policies. If your question is "has the status quo on Wikipedia shifted in such a way that might allow me to add some reddit nonsense to the entry?" the answer is: "absolutely not, you are wasting your time here and you should find something else to edit." Nblund talk 00:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, if anyone wants to put in the work to add this, here's the source links from Alec's article:

https://gamasutra.com/view/news/349504/New_allegations_of_sexual_assault_surface_against_established_game_devs.php https://www.polygon.com/2019/8/29/20835673/night-in-the-woods-alec-holowka-abuse-zoe-quinn https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/349594/Night_in_the_Woods_devs_cut_ties_with_Alec_Holowka_after_abuse_allegations.php https://kotaku.com/night-in-the-woods-designer-alec-holowka-dies-1837783073 https://www.wired.com/story/videogames-industry-metoo-moment-male-fragility/ https://www.pcgamer.com/night-in-the-woods-developer-alec-holowka-has-died/ https://nordic.ign.com/night-in-the-woods/28817/news/night-in-the-woods-developer-accused-of-sexual-assault-dies

This article has the appearance of being a bit of a PoV battleground though. I'll beg off editing main here, please. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ngl, i have been watching this article for around a year now, and it definetly seems more than necessary to put in Alec allegations or some sort of news about that. It's on his page, why cant it be on hers? --Whatshisnamee (talk) 04:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think it was newsworthy and covered in significant media - her role in the Me Too movement is significant. That said, this article is a sensitive one, and I'm not the most brushed up on living persons articles, much less semi-protected ones. What work would need to be done to update this article with a section describing the allegation, the corroboration, the unfortunate suicide, and the quote that Holowka "wished Zoe well" ? --Semitones (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source that writes about this in a way that indicates it's WP:DUE for her article. Good luck finding one, though, because it's not really due.--Jorm (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, if that's the case, it doesn't seem like it's worth the effort for the (marginal) benefit it would bring this article. It is certainly an interesting detail, and a story that seems important to the overall Me Too movement though. Also, I took a look and you're right, there weren't many independent, established sources reporting on it. This was perhaps the best source: https://www.salon.com/2019/08/28/gamergate-2-0-zoe-quinn-accuses-game-developer-alec-holowka-of-abuse/ --Semitones (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see User:Woodroar removed the part about Alec Holowka's suicide with a rather lazy "per the talk page" comment but the recent consensus here seems to be that it SHOULD be included, which I agree with. I think the fact that the Wired called this whole thing "the #metoo moment of the video gaming industry" (not exact quote) makes it obviously notable to include in her article, same with the Salon article posted by User:Semitonesabove. Also I would like to address a comment from 2019 I saw above: it's true that most articles on Holowka's death might not mention Zoe Quinn, but they all mention the accusations, and they do in general single out the specific ones from Quinn, for example the BBC says he was accused by "a female games designer" (not several) ([1]).Thisisarealusername (talk) 04:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After reading through these discussions again—here and at BLPN—I'm seeing an agreement among experienced editors that a mention in this article is UNDUE. That's really not going to change unless (a) there are new reliable sources published later on, or (b) the existing reliable sources get updated. I also don't see any recent consensus here, only editors bringing up the same articles from 2019, which isn't going to shift that weight. Woodroar (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other projects

The mention of the Project Tingle story seems oddly vague - 'Quinn was reported to be working with erotica author Chuck Tingle.' The Kickstarter strikes me as more direct source to say something more like 'Quinn launched a Kickstarter named 'Kickstarted in the Butt' with erotica author Chuck Tingle.' Any thoughts? I can't see any reason to call the Kickstarter an unreliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Random name (talk • contribs) 15:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns

It appears that Zoe Quinn now uses she and they pronouns, rather than just they/them. As proof, I present her verified Twitter account. She clearly states "she/they" there (note, not "they/she" as some do). Both this and this recent article use she and her, and those seem to be the only recent articles that talk about Quinn. Given that use of she and her have more support in the most recent RS, are of at least equal status with they/them according to her profile, and are easier to read, especially for non-native speakers, the article should use those.

Normally IPs are quick to let us know when these things change, but that may not have happened this time since even the talk page is semiprotected. Of course, I understand why that was done. Crossroads -talk- 03:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they are using they/them consistently now, at least as far as I can tell: Twitter, Instagram, personal website. (Facebook page and blog are unavailable. No obvious pronouns on Patreon).
It would be interesting to know why they changed and then changed back but I can't see anything obvious when I search Google News and, of course, they are under absolutely no obligation to explain themself if they don't want to. If they were experimenting to see which pronouns yielded the least trouble then it might make good sense not to say anything.
I think we can and should change the article back to using they/them pronouns. I'll give that a go. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Annoying to see that it looks like changes in Twitter prevent Archive.org from successfully archiving users' profile pages like it used to. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielRigal: Archive.today is good at Twitter threads. Or maybe try archiving the Nitter page of the Twitter profile, that should work across all archives. Rlink2 (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article text now refers to "Quinn" mostly by last name, and appears to avoid using gendered pronouns wherever possible, excepting double-quoted sourced quotations, which are appropriately left unaltered. Accordingly, I've added the {{Article pronouns}} template to the header section of this Talk page, echoing the current usage. If the article pronoun usage changes, the template should be changed to reflect it. (After this discussion section is archived, the |source= param should be updated to point to it.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Hmm, meanwhile I've just gone and switched everything over to they/them at Gamergate (harassment campaign). Is there reason to think Quinn has a problem with they/them? https://unburntwitch.com/about uses it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion about that, and merely added the template to reflect current usage; i.e., it's descriptive, not prescriptive. In that way, it's like template {{Use British English}} or any of several similar templates which simply describe which of several style options is currently in use, so that other users may follow that style option to maintain consistency. If the article switches to they/them, then the template will follow suit. That said, a single discussion or usage style should govern pronouns for Quinn at both articles (or at any other article which talks about them), so if the two are different, that should be addressed. This being the Quinn article, it should be addressed here, or just make a bold change and do it if you think it's not controversial, and hopefully it will stick. Mathglot (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: Well, I think you and I might be seeing this article different ways. To me this reads as already on they/them. There's a they/them footnote, and they/them pronouns are used about once every paragraph on average. If "Quinn" is used a lot, I think it's just because of cases where "they" would be ambiguous (e.g. In 2014, Quinn intended to be part of the canceled YouTube reality television show codenamed "Game_Jam", where they would be ambiguous with experienced game developers and novice developers in the previous sentence). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see; changed it to they/them above. Ideally, the |source= param should be adjusted to point to something that records her choice. Mathglot (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
non-cisgender? Is that actually a thing? I'm usually quite up-to-date with developments in gender politics, but it just reads like an overly niminy-piminy hairsplitting category, almost parodistic of trans-conscious vocabulary.
Nuttyskin (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please add

birthname (Redacted), source: (Redacted) or open the page, that I can put in the content myself. Thx Jucos (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content on IMDB is user-generated, so it's not a reliable source. (See WP:IMDB.) This has been discussed plenty of times. I don't think anyone has found reliable sources giving that name, let alone saying it's a birth name. Woodroar (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-> https://de.scribd.com/doc/300019044/Van-Valkerburg-v-Gjoni-Eugene-Volokh-Letter-in-Support-of-Direct-Appellate-Review Jucos (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/18/appellate-argument-today-as-to-the-order-that-eron-gjoni-not-post-any-further-information-about-zoe-quinn/ Jucos (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Public records like court documents can't be used for claims about living persons. See WP:BLPPRIMARY.
The Volokh Conspiracy is effectively a self-published source, which can't be used for claims about living persons other than the author. See WP:BLPSPS and WP:ABOUTSELF.
I suggest reading through the archives because this has been discussed many, many times. Woodroar (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoë_Quinn&oldid=1250557238"