Jump to content

Talk:Zoë Quinn/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Lack of crucial information in the article

Having read through the talk page and followed news from reliable sources like Guardian or The Slate, one thing here is missing and would confuse reader. The article now claims Zoe Quinn became object of harassment as a result of post about her infidelity. However reliable source as above(even if disagreeing with accusation) clearly mention that the reason for the internet reaction to Zoe Quinn was not infidelity per se, but alledged "sex for favors" situation in which her game received favourable coverage and publicity t by people she allegedly slept with. While we do not have to dwell on the complexity of the issue, it is mentioned by major news now, and current wording in the article is misleading. This should be corrected to reflect what mainstream news sources are saying(with objectivity of course)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Except that even one of those sources says "The fact that the review she was accused of “buying” doesn’t exist hasn’t slowed the self-righteous haranguing, of course. That’s because the “ethics” question is a paper-thin excuse for what’s really going on, which is that the video game world is thick with misogynists who are aching to swarm on any random woman held up for them to hate, no matter what the pretext.". Wikipedia certainly isn't going to join in with that. Ever. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The claims are 1. not being made by any reliable source and 2. provably false. Wikipedia has no obligation to republish provably-false claims about a living person, much less a person who is not a significant public figure and where the claims are little more than anonymous gossip. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
There are plenty of biography pages where wrongful accusations are described.Wikipedia isn't about "truth" or wrong or right but simply covering what is reported and presenting a neutral condensation of facts. Both Guardian and the Slate are reporting that the cause of the internet reaction was not infidelity but accusations of nepotism and "sex for favors" thing. As such we can write that these news media have described the reasons for the reaction as accusations of nepotism and sex for favours. Of course we should also report that the parties involved denied this( I believe Kotaku published a statement about this as well). And that is it. To claim or suggest in the article that the reason for internet controversy was infidelity goes against what the mainstream sources say.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I've tried to edit the harassment section with the facts, as reported in reliable sources, and mindful of WP:BLP. Mr. [RedactedperBLPname] did not make his accusations anonymously. His name has been reported. They should be attributed to him by name. What's outrageous about this is impossible to convey without at least touching on [RedactedperBLPname] 's wildly inflammatory, hateful accusations. They need not be dwelt upon, but they need to be touched upon, else the true nature of the reactions receives less than due WP:WEIGHT. The Slate piece, used only for opinions attributed to the writer, per WP:RSOPINION and the attachment of Mr. [redacted] name to his deeds accomplishes this. Please consider leaving them stable for a day or two, to reflect on whether they comport with WP:RS and WP:BLP. In my view, they really do. The newest bit, from the Guardian, also helps provide due weight to the incendiary nature of the reactions. David in DC (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to edit out part of it that is shown as false in a primary source. The ex never accused Zoe of trading "sex for favours" that reaction was generated entirely in the minds of readers. (The work was also published anonymously under the moniker "the ex"}

There was a typo up for a while that made it seem like Zoe and I were on break between March and June. This has apparently led some people to infer that her infidelity with Nathan Grayson began in early March. I want to clarify that I have no reason to believe or evidence to imply she was sleeping with him prior to late March or early April (though I believe they’d been friends for a while before that). This typo has since been corrected to make it clear we were on break between May and June. To be clear, if there was any conflict of interest between Zoe and Nathan regarding coverage of Depression Quest prior to April, I have no reason to believe that it was sexual in nature.

— The Ex, Important Clarification, http://thezoepost.wordpress.com/
I'm also editing out the quote from the Guardian because I don't believe it is encyclopaedic in nature. I'm also unsure it's worth mentioning the David Auerbach quotes. I do think the reference to conflicts of interest should be in the article as well as the clear refutations of it from Kotaku but I don't know what RS gives us grounds to include it. SPACKlick (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

At this point, Business Insider took notice. Their summary of the Zoe Quinn incident: "Game developer Zoe Quinn was harassed after a former boyfriend wrote a blog post about her, accusing her of having personal relationships with video game journalists. The gaming community exploded, alleging that her personal relationships advanced her career and that the game journalism industry is corrupt, and culminating in a trending #GamerGate hashtag on Twitter." Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Notability and Summarization

This talk page is to discuss proposals with a reasonable prospect of improving the article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Okay, let's back up for a second here and take a deep breath and think about this.

People are concerned about WP:UNDUE. We have issues with biased sources. We are dealing with something which is presently ongoing.

How important is all of this? Is this all notable, or is this the footnote to something else?

Today Google News found that the battle between the SJWs and gamers was notable enough to actually be noticed, and there's a number of articles on the subject matter, but they only barely mention Zoe Quinn, and the mention of her is more or less as is in [Business Insider], which is as follows:

"Game developer Zoe Quinn was harassed after a former boyfriend wrote a blog post about her, accusing her of having personal relationships with video game journalists. The gaming community exploded, alleging that her personal relationships advanced her career and that the game journalism industry is corrupt, and culminating in a trending #GamerGate hashtag on Twitter."

Is there anything else that NEEDS to be said about this? If not, we could potentially more or less just write more or less this; obviously we'd need to rewrite it and wikify it, but this more or less seems like an adequate summary of the incident. It is short, sweet, to the point, and doesn't go down into the nitty gritty details. The censorship issue, the specifics of what was revealed, the misogyny issue - this could all be added, but I think the above is fairly easy to agree on.

Honestly I'm not sure how notable Zoe Quinn is, because this is A) about as much coverage as she has ever gotten and B) isn't really that notable in the grand scheme of things as of right now. As I noted above, "Zoe Quinn made a game which she may or may not have been harassed for, was romantically involved with a gaming journalist which she was definitely harassed for, and got accused of being corrupt" is more or less all there is. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

That is pretty much what is already in the article, given that it doesn't mention anything about using personal relationships to advance her career, as we don't generally cover allegations that were shown to be false. As the allegations were disproven (there was no review), there are concerns about repeating them. In regards to notability, the last time this article was at AfD was before the current issue started, so it wasn't relevant to the determination that she was sufficiently notable to warrant an article. - Bilby (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The allegations were not disproven; I'm not really sure where you got that impression. The allegations are that she used her personal connections to advance her career. The idea of a "review" was just one of about a billion accusations, given that she (and another person she had a personal relationship with) did, in fact, receive positive press coverage from people she was personally involved with, she got hired by someone else she was personally involved with, and the allegations are also that negative press coverage about her is suppressed by her friends. These have not been "disproven". One could argue that the initial claims of harassment by Wizardchan have been "disproven", but we have them in the article still, IIRC. And we do in fact report on "disproven" things all the time anyway, such as Conspiracy Theories, though we note such if it is notable. But that being said, this stuff is not "disproven". Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, the wonderful morphing nature of these claims. Yes, there were specific allegations that there was a quid pro quo. Of course, now that it's been disproven, they're attempting to backpedal.
There is nothing notable about a person using "personal connections to advance her career." Everyone uses personal connections to advance their career. It's called networking, and it's not unethical or illegal. We literally don't care if she was hired by someone she knew - that happens all the time. People hire people they know — I'm not sure why this is supposed to be a "scandal." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
There is something notable about it when it results in news coverage of accusations of corruption and nepotism. And nepotism is widely considered to be unethical behavior, though it does happen all the time.
As for the idea of the claims "morphing": from the very beginning there were a wide variety of accusations. You are creating a false chronology of events, that people changed tacks after finding something was false, when in fact from the very beginning there were a large number and variety of accusations, as shown by the RSs. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
We aren't a catalog of every accusation ever made against someone. If you can't document specific allegations made by specific people in specific sources (and not "a blog said some people on Reddit said something") in a concise and NPOV manner, that would suggest that there isn't anything notable to document. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Just a note: Your use of the term "SJWs" to describe Quinn's defenders clearly establishes your POV on this matter. It's a derogatory term used only by those who dismiss the very idea of social justice. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I've tried to be nice, but you continue to fail to assume good faith on my part. If you cannot be civil, please leave. I'm not sure what else you would call such folks; that is the name I most frequently see associated with them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
How about just "people who disagree with this negative characterization of Quinn"? Gamaliel (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If "used personal connections to advance career" were notable enough to go into an article, then it would need to be included for literally every successful creative person on Wikipedia. Euchrid (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
When the allegations about Grayson were looked into, it was determined that he never reviewed her game, never provided any significant coverage after they began a relationship, and the only significant coverage he ever wrote was before they entered into a relationship. [1] And that is what the reliable sources are reporting. As to Wizardchan - no one ever disproved anything. There are claims that it didn't happen, but that, in itself, is a type of harassment given that it can't be "proven" either way. At any rate, we don't continue the harassment by providing every detail about what was alleged: Wikipedia:AVOIDVICTIM. - Bilby (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The allegations are more complicated than are being claimed. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Not so much "complicated" as "ill-defined". Are there any reliable sources that actually make these allegations? Or is it all forum posts and Twitter? Euchrid (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The RSs aren't making allegations; they are recording other people making said allegations. I suppose one could argue that they are making said allegations themselves by repeating them, but... yeah. I mean, I guess you could point out that they are "asking questions" in some cases, but I wouldn't say that they were accusing people of anything. Well, there are some which are, but... TBH a good RS shouldn't BE accusing anyone of anything; they should be reporting and documenting and talking about what is going on. If something was "accusing" someone of doing something like this, it would probably be a problem, because it would be a sign of bias, which makes them harder to use. This is one of the problems with using some of the sources, such as The Guardian - the source is openly biased. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Small edits to harassment section

So I wasn't sure this fit in any of the above discussions so I thought I'd start a new section to try and build consensus for the following changes. (Normally I'd just boldly make them but this topic is sensitive enough)

  1. First sentence Oversourced - 4 sources for what amounts to a quite simple claim is overkill. I'd prefer two or at a push three. I suggest removing the Escapist and Marysue. but I'm open to ideas
  2. First Sentence remove the mention of Steam Greenlight. It's mentioned above so strikes as repetition in the article especially given how small the article is. I'm also not overly comfortable with the way in which it distances the reported claims from the fact they are reported.
  3. Second sentence remove the mention of Steam Greenlight. Again just repetition.
  4. Second sentence change "put up" to Published. "Put up" doesn't read very well I've looked at various synonyms but published looked best to me, open to suggestions.
Harassment
Quinn has reported that in December 2013, while attempting to publish Depression Quest, she became the target of harassment, both online and through sexually explicit phone calls.[2] Shortly after the game was released on Steam, in August 2014.Subsequent to this, Quinn stated that she was subjected to various forms of harassment,[3] reportedly including publication of sensitive personal information online [4] and hacking of her Tumblr account by an individual claiming to be from 4chan.


The two changes I didn't make because I couldn't find solutions to them were two wording issues in the final sentence. Subsequent to this, Quinn stated... Just doesn't read well to me. "Following this" "After this" both seem better but not perfect. Also ...Quin Stated that ... reportedly including duplicates the reported nature making it sound like possibly the reports come from unknown sources elsewhere. anyway, what do people think? SPACKlick (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts:
1 - The Escapist is the reference we used to verify that the initial claims of harassment are traced back to Quinn herself, although it could be replaced by this article from the more prestigious The Globe and Mail, which also attribute them to her. I'm OK with removing the Mary Sue.
2 - Good points, I agree with the change.
3 - It's important to convey that the game was sent to Greenlight on two occasions, December 2013 and August 2014. The sentence removed at the previous point could be moved to the first paragraph of Life and Career.
4 - OK with Published. Diego (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
On1 I thought that was still clear in the two references I left, will need to read again.
On 3, I agree that it's important I thought it was conveyed in the prior section if it's not we should clarify it there either way. SPACKlick (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I've made the change. I didn't realize that The Escapist and The Globe and Mail were referring to the two different episodes of harassment, so I've not removed any reference at this moment. Diego (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

We can't use The Escapist as a RS for claims of harassment; they have directly stated that they do not fact check such things, and thus are not a reliable source for such. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Right now, that's true for all the sources we have. All them have been called into question. The Escapist is actually the most reliable for the information it contains, being the only one that has reported on how they obtained it. [[

WP:NEWSORG|Publishing retractions]] adds to the credibility that the source has a review process, not retracts from it. Diego (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

More Reliable Sources

I've given up on editing this article. Life's too short.

Instead, I'll post reliable sources here and let the owners of the article others demonstrate how they think the sources should be handled:

The death of the “gamers” and the women who “killed” them Ars Technica 28 August 2014. David in DC (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Embarrassing Week in the Gaming Industry Concludes with #WeLoveGameDevs Twitter Campaign Crave Online. 22 August 2014. Bulleted, factual account that's significantly better than ours. David in DC (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Gamers Sign Open Letter Against Online Harassment PC Magazine. 2 September 2014. Includes "Recently, Zoe Quinn, the game developer behind Depression Quest, also found herself confronted with online abuse after an ex-boyfriend wrote a blog post that suggested she traded [Redacted because the owners of this article substitute the TRUTH for what appears in reliable sources.] for media coverage of her game on sites like Kotaku. She denied it and evidence of it having occurred was scant. But the Internet backlash was swift and harsh, and those who came to her defense also found themselves the subject of threats and hacks." David in DC (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

What this seems to prove is that gaming blogs have remarkably lower standards than the Wikipedia has. Writing about Mario & Zelda apparently doesn't translate to ethical, responsible journalism about living people. Tarc (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Which of these sources is a gaming blog? Ars Technica, Crave Online or PC Magazine? David in DC (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
These are all reliable sources, appropriate for use in a Wikipedia article.Euchrid (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
That's not quite the whole point, which is giving undue weight to tabloid-like accusations. Tarc (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking more of their descriptions of the harassment campaign. Note that none of them say that "Quinn claimed she was harassed", but rather they state that it was a real thing that happened. Euchrid (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
That's not quite right, please see The Escapist and The Globe and Mail. Diego (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what point you're making. Euchrid (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The point is that there are sources saying that Quinn claimed she was harassed, and The Globe and Mail states that the reports about harassment are traced back to Quinn herself. If you want to change the neutral wording that we have arrived to by consensus, use a reference that provides direct, verifiable evidence of instances of the harassment that Quinn received, or who put their reputation on the line by explicitly reporting that they have checked it and are not merely repeating things by hearsay. Diego (talk) 05:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Another Reliable Source: Petition Calls For End To 'Hateful Speech' In Gaming Industry In Wake Of Rape, Death Threats Against Developer Zoe Quinn International Business Times. 2 September 2014. David in DC (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Wording the accusations

I don't think we should be using the word "infidelity" here. As the majority of the reliable sources have said the accusations are unproven or false, and seeing as this is a BLP and that WP:BLPGOSSIP applies, I think we should avoid repeating the substance of the accusations as much as feasibly possible. Instead of saying "accusing Quinn of infidelity", it would be more BLP-compliant to say something like "making various accusations about Quinn's private life". We could perhaps follow that with something like "and her personal relationships with figures in the gaming journalism industry". I'm not saying that we should use the exact wording that I've proposed here, but I think we are being more specific than we should be. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I would support those changes. The particular details are not relevant to the ongoing story and subsequent coverage in the media, and the BLP policy limits the depth by which we can report the incident in a biography. For readers interested in learning the particulars, we provide links to sources covering them. Diego (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
There's a great phrase in this opinion piece that's usable per WP:RSOPINION that may be helpful in describing the blog post without repeating the gossip:
No one should be treated like an object. Christine Barr, writing in the Paris, Tennessee Post-Intelligencer, said "An ex-boyfriend posted information designed to embarrass her, and the gaming community went off on her, hacking her accounts, posting purported naked pictures of her and harassing her as only anonymous trolls can."
It's the phrase "posted information designed to embarrass her" that I'm suggesting might be a useful addition to the page. The rest is provided so that I'm not accused of cherry-picking or taking things out of context. I do not claim that WP:RSOPINION permits the use of the remainder of the sentence. I'll leave that call for others, but "Christine Barr, writing in the Paris Post-Intelligencer, said "An ex-boyfriend posted information designed to embarrass her..." seems pretty useful to me, given the BLP concerns I'm reading on this page. David in DC (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I support this proposed rewording. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree pretty strongly, actually; this is weaseling, and also is not supported by the RSs. The accusations which set the whole thing off were that she cheated on him with game journalists and developers; this is both accurate and verifiable. The RSs have NOT stated that that was false; indeed, I'm not sure that any of them have disputed the claim that she cheated on him with these folks, or at least that he accused her of doing so (which is what we are, ultimately, reporting), and Kotaku confirmed that she had a romantic relationship with Grayson outright. It is important to understand what the accusations were because they A) are what lead to the claims that she was corrupt by the gaming community (because of who it was) and B) are what lead to the harassment, both of which are notable and verifiable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but those accusations are totally meaningless and non-notable. We literally don't care about Quinn's personal relationship choices and the concept of "infidelity" outside of marriage is, at best, subjective. If there is *anything* notable about this, it is the disproven allegation that a relationship amounted to a quid pro quo for positive press coverage. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
How are they non-notable? They've been noted in literally dozens of RSs at this point, and are vital to understanding what happened. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
They're non-notable because they're irrelevant to a conservatively-written encyclopedic biography of a game developer, whose private life is no business of the public's. There is no legitimate public interest in it.
What may be notable is the claim that one of her relationships amounted to unethical behavior in a matter of public interest - to wit, that it affected journalistic coverage of her work. That claim has been disproven. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Whether we refer to it as infidelity or not (and I think we shouldn't because of the lack of sources for timing and definition), the fact that there was an accusation of a relationship between a reporter and her and that was the justification, whether actual or just professed, for a lot of the negative response (including some or much of the harassment) and this is reported on in some of the sources already linked. As for the allegation being disproven, the only thing that was disproven was that Nathan wrote a review (he did however give the game top billing in January 2014 on Rock Paper Shotgun) not that there was no quid pro quo with any of the accused. However there's no solid source for any quid pro quo and that's why it can't be included. However it's definitely relevant to include that there was an accusation, admitted to that there was a relationship between the reporter and Zoe. SPACKlick (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
January 2014 is well before the relationship is alleged to have occurred, which means it's irrelevant. It is precise and accurate to state that there is no evidence to support any claims of a quid pro quo. In the absence of any evidence and in the absence of any reliable sources making the allegations, we have no reason to treat them as anything more than scurrilous anonymous gossip-mongering conspiracy theories. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely, we don't need to give them any credit, however as the espoused reason for the bulk of the backlash they are relevant to the section of the article on harassment. The Accusations included one relating to a relationship with a game journalist. Many people responded that this was a conflict of interest issue. This response included/led to the harassment we are discussing. It's relevant, and discussed in WP:RS. Therefore it should be in the article, maybe we should focus on how to word it so we don't give the impression that the accusation of conflict of interest is truth. SPACKlick (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Two disputed sentences on Harassment

Two sentences have been re-reverted twice today Posting here for further discussion.

Quinn has reported that in December 2013, while attempting to publish Depression Quest, she became the target of harassment, both online and through sexually explicit phone calls.

where the dispute resolves around the bolded section and as it's merely a style of prose matter for me I have no desire to change the current version and

Quinn was targeted by "a disturbing harassment campaign", including publication of sensitive personal information online and hacking of her Tumblr account by someone claiming to be from the 4chan imageboard /v/.

Where the dispute again revolves around the bolded section and the alternate versions replace it with lines similar to "Quinn reported being subjected to various forms of harassment". I feel the second better reflects the entirety of event and that if the sentence is about Zoe Reporting then it cannot have the Amanda Marcotte quote because it would appear to attribute it to Zoe.

Having made a further review of sources I was confusing the 2013 harassment reports and the 2014 harassment reports. I think the 2014 may well be sourced enough to remove words such as claim, report or allege altogether. SPACKlick (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The reliability of the reports is questionable given that most are reporting about the incident as hearsay, and several RS have traced back the reports to Quinn herself - including The Escapist for the 2013 episode and The Globe and Mail. Could you please tell us what references have you found that provide verifiable evidence of the 2014 harassment that would dispel those doubts? Diego (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I am discussing here only the 2014 harassment, every article i have read on it, even those with less favourable biases towards Zoe Quinn, report it as her being harassed not her claiming to be harassed. I haven't seen any sources distancing their reporting with words like claim, report, allege etc. We don't need to show that the source has done full fact checking for them to act as a WP:RS even on WP:BLP SPACKlick (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Then you haven't read this and this. For my part, I haven't seen any direct evidence of the harassment, certainly nothing published by a RS. Per WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:DIVERSE, we do need to check for direct evidence when there's a reasonable suspicion that the reports at multiple sources are mere word-for-word retellings of the same original, and we have a reliable source stating that this is going on here. Verifiability tells us that "they are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others", so they shouldn't be used in a BLP. Diego (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, it is enough for the woman to say "this happened to me" and for her to point at what happened, e.g. the site hacking, defacing, etc... What are you waiting for, a file on the police blotter? Tarc (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
You may be OK with that, but Wikipedia articles require verifiability, and the burden for proof lays on those wanting to include the content, more so for a BLP. Nobody to whom I've requested proof of the harassment has been able to provide them, so there are serious doubts that this can be verified. I've tagged accordingly, and will remove the controversial content if the neutral wording that we achieved by consensus is not restored. Diego (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I think there may be some confusion about two separate claims. The first is covered by the sentence "Quinn has reported that in December 2013, while attempting to publish Depression Quest, she became the target of harassment". That's the case which people have argued is unproven, because the harassment was described as having occurred over the phone and on an online forum which doesn't archive posts. It is the one referred to in the two links Diego just provided. Accordingly, consensus was to qualify it with the statement "Quinn has reported ..." as it wasn't (and couldn't be) independently confirmed nor disproven.
The second sentence, "After the posting, Quinn was targeted by 'a disturbing harassment campaign' ...", covers the current controversy. That one isn't in question, as the harassment has been very public. Accordingly, we haven't been qualifying that statement, as there is no need to do so, and the sources have been consistent in describing it as having occurred, rather than as having been reported.
Personally, I don't like the current qualification on the first sentence, but I'm ok with it as it was a consensus decision, and it is accurate. I don't see any need for any qualification on the second sentence.- Bilby (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The escapist refers to the harassment in 2013 so isn't relevant here, that's already covered. The Globe and Mail says "Even if the allegations against Ms. Quinn were true, it is hard to justify the extreme levels of rage being spewed online,". And the below sources, already discussed here or in the article
  • Vice "Hordes of angry gamers attacking a woman on the Internet" "This week's target of the largely anonymous hivemind ... is ... Zoe Quinn" "It is here that the harassment campaign—which includes sharing her personal information, defamatory YouTube videos, and weird phone calls to her parents—tries to bill itself as justified:"
  • Talking Ship "Of course, the abuse that Quinn has received in the aftermath of this is utterly unacceptable and unhelpful." "Gamers, too, need to mature..., rather than attacking people."
  • Geekenstein via n4g "Does any of this justify the harassment Quinn has received? Fuck no."
  • Daily Dot "The gaming community has unleashed a stream of vitriol and harassment against feminist gamer Zoe Quinn"
  • The Daily Beast " a disturbing harassment campaign organized against indie game developer Zoe Quinn" "the harassment campaign “includes sharing her personal information, defamatory YouTube videos, and weird phone calls to her parents.”"
I'm sure there are more.
For balance I also found game revolution saying "There are also accusations that Zoe is lying about harassment and misogyny" SPACKlick (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that with so many sources for the information we would be better using one that cannot be as easily accused of bias. Vice gives solid details on the harassment campaign, it's not so easily quotable but see below for its content. (Also to note I moved your post outside of mine to keep attribution clear, if you need to break up a post please copy the author attribution into it) SPACKlick (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The game revolution piece is likely to be referring to the 2013 harassment, not the current one, as it is the 2013 incident which was questioned. - Bilby (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I am under the impression it is referring to the current stuff as well. SPACKlick (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
It is, however, an opinion piece rather than serious journalism, as it admits itself. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you're mistaken that it is referring to current harassment with that line - the statement simply says that there are accusations that she faked harassment, and we know that those allegations exist, are currently being made, and and refer to the 2013 situation, as questionable as those allegations may be. As no source is saying that she is faking harassment now, (because, after all, it is clearly happening), there's no reason to assume that the statement is referring to anything other than the 2013 case. - Bilby (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
In the current harassment Quinn has claimed to be doxxed, and there have been counterclaims that either it was posted by her or someone connected with her in order to draw sympathy. None of it is particularly well sourced but it's out there and I don't think we could efinitively exclude it from the above source's intended meaning. All of the above being said, it's not relevant to anything that will be included in the article in future without more reliable sources appearing, discussing it in more detail. SPACKlick (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you're reading a bit much into it. But it isn't a concern, given that we've agreed that we can say that she is currently being harassed. - Bilby (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks, that may prove useful to ensure neutral wording at the article. Do some of the sources include links or descriptions of the kind of harassment received, and the names or authors of the videos? I'll check them later with more detail, but some pointer to direct evidence would accelerate the search. Diego (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused - are you saying that you are unsure if she is currently being harassed? The current situation isn't under any dispute, and it isn't being questioned by any sources. The 2013 harassment was questioned. - Bilby (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, Vice has a lot of details, more than we need really. "the harassment campaign—which includes sharing her personal information, defamatory YouTube videos, and weird phone calls to her parents" "a digital mob has taken to accusing Quinn, not ironically, of creating "a negative image for all current and future female game devs with her actions" and "[setting] back women in the video game industry." "moderators were still deleting Quinn-related comments violating the site's guidelines (i.e., posting her phone number and address)" SPACKlick (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Zoe Quinn is unquestionably being harassed, though some of the specifics (phone calls, for example) cannot be confirmed and are disputed - it is hard to tell if she has actually been doxxed or not, whereas other folks (Phil Fish) certainly have. I think we should simply note harassment rather than trying to go into the specifics of it. The motives behind the harassment are disputed; in truth, this is because there are a variety of people doing it with a variety of motivations, and Quinn herself has been harassing others (the copyright takedown on the YouTube video, as well as being perceived as ordering the harassment of others, such as John Bain), so some of it is also retaliatory in nature. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
No reliable source is reporting anything remotely resembling the idea that "Quinn herself has been harassing others." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
There are reliable sources talking about censorship through false takedowns but its relevance is questionable. To get to the productive part of the discussion. I agree that it is likely better not to go into details on the harassment possibly to mention that it was widespread or varied if we can source those summations. SPACKlick (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no proof or even evidence that the takedowns originated from Quinn, and a good-faith takedown claim cannot reasonably and neutrally described as "harassment" anyway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
As the reliable sources are linking to Reddit [5] to support the claim that her personal details were leaked, and the Reddit mod leads with "Earlier this morning Zoe Quinn was Doxxed on Reddit", there isn't much reason to question that something happened. The current statement, "After the posting, Quinn was targeted by "a disturbing harassment campaign", including publication of sensitive personal information online and hacking of her Tumblr account by someone claiming to be from the 4chan imageboard /v/." is well supported by reliable sources, none of which are questioning that it occurred. Let's just stick with what we have. - Bilby (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The vast majority of the sources refer to the harassment as something that happened, not something that was reported. The notion that Quinn falsifies harassment against herself, which is what is implied by the the weasel-word "reported", is a fringe opinion with no place in this article. Euchrid (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

With respect to the 2014 harassment agreed and I don't think anyone's currently disagreeing with that (although there is some disagreement over how best to source it and how much detail to include). With respect to the 2013 harassment the words reported or claimed are absolutely necessary because that's what the reliable sources say. I wouldn't call the idea that SOME of the harassment is falsified fringe, but I would say it is certainly not verifiable through any of the reliable sources I've seen. SPACKlick (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Question about Kotaku article reliability

I just wanted to point out that, unlike the vast majority of sources which rely on Zoe Quinn or her ex-boyfriend's personal statements, the Kotaku article actually performs "original research". In short, the article refutes allegations that Nathan Grayson's review on her game was biased since the review was written and submitted before Quinn cheated with the author. The article refers to an investigation of Gawker/Kotaku staff and, implicitly, Nathan Grayson as sources. The article is a primary source for refuting the allegations since it relies on an internal source. However, I'm not sure if this would be considered a reliable secondary source for the *existence* of the allegations. Press releases, like this article, would usually work as sources, but in this case, Kotaku could be seen as a participant in the drama because of Nathan Grayson. Corax rarus (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

That link goes to a 404. Euchrid (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Corax rarus, this is a common misconception about sources. WP:OR and WP:V means that we, as Wikipedia editors, need to base our edits on reliable, third-party published sources, and cannot reference our own personal knowledge or experiences. These policies do not prohibit journalists from original research; on the contrary, they require it. All of the persons mentioned in this article and their works (Tweets, blogs, etc.) are effectively primary sources, and Kotaku is a secondary source because it is investigating and writing about the primary sources. Woodroar (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks User:Woodroar. I was just concerned of WP:NPOV since the journalist's colleagues are also at the heart of this drama. So this source should be sufficient to at least the existence of the controversy? (Also, User:Euchrid, I've fixed my original link above) Corax rarus (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:NPOV is another policy that only we as editors need to follow. Sources can and often are subjective, sometimes in a good way but sometimes in truly horrible ways, but it's our job to remain objective in how we reference them. But to answer your question, I don't think it's a particularly good source for that claim. Not because of Kotaku's reliability, but that the source doesn't adequately cover the controversy. It essentially says "several people inquired about allegations and we found they didn't have merit for these reasons" but nothing beyond that, no mention of harassment or trolling or anything like that. Since we would have to read between the lines and that's original research, the most we could get from this article is that they find the vague allegations are without merit. Obviously just my opinion, and I'd welcome others to chime in. Woodroar (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Just wanted to also add that the article also states that "Shortly after that, in early April, Nathan and Zoe began a romantic relationship." which was a point of contention (whether Zoe actually had a romantic relationship with others between November 2013 and July 2014 as the ex-boyfriend claimed). Corax rarus (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Even if it does, per WP:SYNTH we can't use multiple sources to combine material or imply conclusions, especially on a BLP. Woodroar (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
What review are you referring to? The Kotaku article doesn't discuss any review. All it says is there was no review. This appears to be supported by other sources. It also appears to be supported by simple OR since AFAIK, even opponents of Zoe Quinn haven't been able to show any review. (They appear to now be discussing "favourable coverage" or similar rather than a review. Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
That's either a typo or a misunderstanding. "The Kotaku article doesn't discuss any review. All it says is there was no review." The Kotaku article discusses a review by refuting the rumors that one exists. The second "review" in my comment refers to the mention of Quinn's game in an article which was a review but not a review of Quinn's game (this was a review of a reality TV show). Anyway, the point was that both Grayson and Quinn's ex-boyfriend mentioned that they had romantic relationships with Quinn during the same timeframe despite being enemies (Grayson threatened to seek legal action against the ex-boyfriend and Quinn over libel). Kotaku would be the reliable third-party confirming the conflict (since Quinn and her ex-boyfriend were biased primary sources), but apparently we can't say A+B=C as per WP:SYNTH. Corax rarus (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't see how "In short, the article refutes allegations that Nathan Grayson's review on her game was biased since the review was written and submitted before Quinn cheated with the author" was meant to imply there was no game review but only a TV show review. It seems to imply there was a game review but Kotaku claim it was written and submitted before Quinn cheated so you comment does seeming unnecessarily confusing. At no stage did you mention a TV series review, or mention there was no game review.
Yet what we know is Kotaku refuted the "allegations that Nathan Grayson's review on her game was biased" not by saying the "review was written and submitted before Quinn cheated with the author", but simply by saying the review on her game doesn't exist. They also mentioned that the only time Grayson wrote anything "involving Zoe Quinn" was the article on the reality show which they state was from before the relationship begun.
Note that the article Kotaku linked to about the reality TV show wasn't what would generally be called a review either (particularly not in reference to a TV show). It was a "behind the scenes" news or story style article look at how everything allegedly was wrong with the reality show. It's not a review or evaluation based on having watched the TV show and offering an analysis/review/evaluation of the TV show based on this viewing (or reading or listening or playing or whatever). Which is what most people expect when someone mentions a review of a TV show (or book or play or song or game or whatever), as per our article. It doesn't even sound like the author has seen the show, and they definitely don't seem to be claiming they have. (To be honest, I'm not sure if the show was ever actually shown to anyone or because it was cancelled, it basically never became a product anyone could really review.)
If you want to nitpick, you could perhaps say the article was a review of allegations surrounding the filming of and problems behind the show. But calling it a review of the show is a real stretch.
The simple fact is, if you had an equivalent story about the latest Star Wars film or The Big Bang Theory or whatever, very few people would be claiming it was a review of the film or series. If the people making allegations about Quinn are claiming that article is a review, it's no wonder no one trusts them since it's sounds a lot like a lame attempt to deny they were wrong about the existance of a review. (Although as I've said, as far as I know most of them have now moved on from claiming there is a review, instead talking about favourable coverage or whatever.)
Note that this isn't simply nitpicking, it's an important point. If we were to ever cover the story in this level of detail (which I doubt), it would be important we mention Kotaku's primary defence in relation to allegations of a biased game review is that there is none. Similarly, considering that many people would not consider the article on the TV show a review, it would be fairly confusing for us to call it one (except if we are quoting someone who does call it a review) or to imply a review exists since most people who have followed the story will be wondering "what review" and many people following our links to the "review" will think they must have followed the wrong link.
BTW, I stand by my comments. The Kotaku article doesn't discuss any game review. The only thing it does is mention there was no game review which isn't what I would consider "discussing a review". Still, if you disagree and feel this is "discussing a review", we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't consider it an important point since I made sure my comment was clear in saying they did mention there was no review. So there should have been no confusion that they did deny there was any review from my comment.
Nil Einne (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Nil Einne I wasn't trying to insert any bias. If I'm guilty of anything, it's being unclear. Nathan Grayson, the Kotaku writer, |was the one who referred to his article as a "review".. One of his tweets was (paraphrased) "I can't believe people won't even read what they're arguing about. I only wrote a TV show review." Corax rarus (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor rewording

I think that, while the source being cited describes it as such, we should change the phrase

the 4chan imageboard /v/

under the "Harassment" header, as it's slightly awkward. I propose a change to

4chan's gaming forum /v/

. The lay reader isn't going to know what "imageboard" means, nor is it particularly important to the discussion to define /v/ as one.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Ryulong, see what you think. I'm glad you brought this up because I had no idea what "/v/" was, which made following some discussions here a bit difficult. I do have a question for you, though--what does it mean to say "from", in "from the gaming forum"? It's nothing official, like they're a moderator or something like that, or is it? Drmies (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
No, nothing official. Each board there has its own "regulars", is all, and each board is a different island unto itself. Tarc (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate becoming increasingly notable

It appears that "Gamergate" (ugh, why do we let the internet name these things?) is becoming increasingly notable; we've now gone from about a dozen articles about Zoe Quinn to more than a hundred which show up mentioning her on Google News. Business Insider alone has written more than one article about it, as has The Guardian, and it appears to be all over the place now, greatly overshadowing the original coverage by the looks of things. As usual, the level-headed folks who suggested that we sit back and wait before messing with the article at the start were right. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and interestingly enough, essentially all the coverage focuses on the "vicious online assaults" of Quinn, Sarkeesian and others, with The Week describing her attackers as "the gamer Taliban" who commit acts of "online terrorism." Paste noted that "It started with an angry ex-boyfriend releasing private information about a female game developer, Zoe Quinn. Paste didn’t mention that because the personal life of a game designer is not news. ... Whether it’s hate, fear or simply the grotesque joy horrible people find in maliciously denigrating others, this entire #GamerGate nonsense is built on silencing women and shutting them out of games." Notice the focus of the reliable sources, which we are required to mirror. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: Just to note that I've added an elipsis into the above quote where a portion was excluded in order to preserve accuracy. SPACKlick (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: Only if you're only reading the editorial pieces - which, as you yourself complained about above, we shouldn't be. On the other hand, the articles which are actually, well, news articles seem to be about how the revelations about Quinn lead to not only her harassment but an ugly fight on the internet. We've got articles like [this], and [this], and the Al Jezeera article, and [Business Insider's new article about the growing rift between gamers and game journalists], and [this about it being about corruption]. We've had [the FBI talk about harassment] and stuff even unrelated to Quinn and Anita, like [Polygon and Kotaku] getting caught with writers violating their ethics policies. [What Culture] ran an article about it, and the first thing the article noted was "it's not about sexism". Now, that's not to say that people aren't mentioning the harassment - virtually every article does mention it - but the ethics issues are being mentioned very often and given focus in many, many articles. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Interesting that you dismiss clearly-reliable sources such as Paste and The Week while relying on GamerHeadlines.com and "What Culture" for your allegations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I note that "What Culture" is not a reliable source per Wikipedia guidelines - its own About page states "WhatCulture.com operates in a similar manner to popular social networks such as Twitter, in that we accept direct contributions from people around the world." There is no evidence of significant editorial controls, any fact-checking structure or process to ensure accountability. The article in question is bylined simply "Jordan" with no last name. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, a number of articles have mentioned the term "social justice warrior", including Forbes of all places. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Al Jazeera especially notes the the controversy is not about infidelity but about using sex to advance games and alledged corruption in gaming journalism. They also mention a rift between gamers and gaming journalists who in several cases started to become social/ideological activists instead. While the latter probably belongs into Gamergate article some poor sould will have to create, the first part needs to be presented in the current article as the at the moment the readers can get impression that Zoe Quinn was harassed solely due to allegations of infidelity.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Lol, no. What you're trying to do is water down the harassment by echoing the accusations from the jilted ex-boyfriend's blog, i.e. painting the picture that Quinn deserved it. Angry video gamers may be claiming that as their source of their bubbling frustration, but their opinions and their personal motivations mater nothing at all to this person's Wikipedia biography. Tarc (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, I think more of these articles are starting to focus more on the whole movement versus Zoe Quinn, despite her being almost inevitably mentioned. If a couple of people were willing to help out draft a independent article relating to the movement as a whole. Nothing more is being accomplished from all these discussions on this talk page other than editors on both sides throwing remarks. Citation Needed | Citation Needed 21:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Tarc, nobody is trying to water down the harassment and nobody other than yourself has suggested anybody deserved harassment and abuse for any reason. We're trying to see what happened, that can be verified, in reliable sources. If those sources give details on the harassment, we'll discuss the encyclopaedic merit of going into detail vs a broad summary. If they give reasons given by the harassers, we'll debate the merits of including that vs not detailing motive. I do agree that the details are starting to be more about the *sigh* "GamerGate" controversy(ies) and therefore are probably not for this article and like Citation said above there may now be enough for that kind of article to be created. SPACKlick (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, he is doing that, as are several others here, and I will call out misogynistic comments when I see it. Do not presume that you are in a position to give instructions to other editors. Tarc (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Good lord, are we seriously accusing editors of being misogynistic right now? Please read WP:CIVIL before making anymore comments, will you? Citation Needed | Citation Needed 23:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
[EC] I didn't give any instructions there Tarc, just commentary. Although I do feel obliged to point out, per WP:EQ that you're tone throughout this discussion has been abrasive and offputting and at time at least borderline uncivil Could you try to moderate your posts to discussing content not contributors? SPACKlick (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
This Slate article adequately acknowledges both sides of GamerGate - the Quinn/SJW Defender side, and the side of those criticizing Quinn and game journalists for being corrupt: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/09/gamergate_explodes_gaming_journalists_declare_the_gamers_are_over_but_they.html TheNewMinistry (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Allegedly corrupt. Please amend your statement as per WP:BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it's becoming clear that the fact that there is some allegation of corruption is sourced. And the fact that it is being given by some parties who are criticising and some parties who are harassing/abusing Zoe Quinn as the reason for those actions is reasonably sourced. Even assuming both of the above were perfectly sourced, to what extent should the article mention them? I don't see it being anything more than a brief mention in an article about Zoe rather than about GamerGate. If we look at the form we have now, I think the best way to include it, wrt WP:DUE, is to put a clause in at the end of the sentence about the blog post along the lines of which some people interpreted as giving evidence of unethical relationships with journalists or something to that effect, I'm not wordsmithy today. SPACKlick (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
If we mention allegations of unethical relationships with journalists, we also need to mention that they were disproved. At which point I'm uncomfortable, because it is always a concern on BLPs to mention allegations only to say they are false. It risks a "where there's smoke there's fire" interpretation, which clearly wouldn't be the intent. - Bilby (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
We can't say that they were disproved or were false because they're not. The problem is that the sources note that the relationship was ethically murky - and repeatedly so. She was accused of being chummy with Grayson even prior to their romantic relationship, which isn't uncommon, and that their friendship was not disclosed - and it is a problem to report on something that your friends did without making note of the fact that they are, in fact, your friends. The whole review thing was garbage, but that was never the core compliant, contrary to what some poorly-researched sources claimed - from the very beginning, the whole thing was about inappropriate personal relationships, both between her and the journalist, and between various game developers. We can't say that it was disproven because - let's be clear here - it wasn't. It hasn't been. We can't know what happened, and we don't know what happened. What happened was a clear violation of what journalists consider to be proper ethical code, because it created, at a very minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest, as was noted in innumerable articles. This is a strawman. We shouldn't note the fake review thing at all, because A) it was only ever in a couple of RSs and B) it was purely in the "this didn't happen" sense. But the thing has been going on for a while since then, and the initial claims were that she had used her personal ties to garner positive press for her game, and Grayson was merely the culmination of it - it needs to be remembered that people had been complaining about so-called "social justice warriors" promoting Zoe Quinn's claims of harassment in conjunction with Depression Quest months before this whole thing broke. The reason it exploded so much is because allegations of said corruption have existed for ages - it isn't even just about who she had sex with, but that who she had sex with was the most flagrant example of inappropriate relationships which appeared to advance her career. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, no, they have been proven false. The specific claim was that there was a quid pro quo between a personal relationship and a positive review. It has been proven that there was no such review. One is not then allowed to backpedal and claim "oh wait we didn't mean that, we meant it was just unethical to have a relationship at all!" We are not here to provide a forum for endlessly-revised and unfalsifiable claims about someone's personal relationships.
You are complaining about the fact that Zoe Quinn knew someone. Here's a newsflash: Journalists know people. The mere fact that Quinn knew someone, had conversations with someone or was friends with someone is not even evidence, much less proof, of anything unethical. In the real world, in every industry, journalists get to know the people they report upon. That is neither suspicious nor unethical. Indeed, the very job of a journalist involves getting to know people (sometimes in order to get information from them) while reporting objectively upon the information they receive. Journalists are not automatons, nor are they monks, expected to ascetically refrain from any and all human contact lest their coverage be tainted. We care even less about any claims that she had a relationship with someone who later hired her - like... newsflash, people get hired all the time in all walks of life based on who they know. It is not a "revelation" that people who know each other hire each other and there is nothing encyclopedically noteworthy about it.
If there is any corruption in the games journalism industry, it is in the massive amount of advertising dollars spent by major games companies, which has had a known impact on coverage in several outlets. The fact that the lynch mob is focusing not on the zillion-dollar ad campaigns for Call of Assassin's Theft Watchdogs XVI but on an indie developer's friendships demonstrates exactly how much this has to do with real corruption - none at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, no, that is a straw man, because from the very beginning it was about improper interpersonal relationships. How much is it being mentioned now, in the RSs, a week later? Hardly at all. It is all about "positive press" and "personal relationships". Indeed, that's what it was about from the beginning, and indeed, in the original allegations made by her ex, he mentioned that they were friends before they were romantically involved with each other - and if you think that reporting on your friends without disclosing that you have a personal relationship with the subject is okay, well, journalist ethics guidelines say otherwise. I understand you're upset, but if you look at the actual sources, the idea that she has been "cleared" of having improper interpersonal relationships is simply false. Just because someone said "It's totally cool, guys" doesn't mean that it is totally cool or is perceived as totally cool. You claim "we", but all you're really talking about is yourself. There are literally hundreds of RSs at this point talking about this issue. Again, if we go into a lot of depth about this, I'm fine with mentioning the stupid review thing, but as it is, it is only mentioned in a few sources, and always in the "this didn't happen" sense, so I'm not convinced it is really notable enough to be worthy of inclusion of the article. If our stuff consists of a couple sentences, it is far too minor in relation to the accusations of corruption and harassment to be worthy of mention; if we go and write ten paragraphs on it, then it might be worth including. TBH, I'm still not convinced this article should even exist; this far overshadows everything else about her pretty much ever, and she is really only questionably notable otherwise (she isn't an important or major game developer and hasn't made any important games), which makes me think it would be better to delete this article and just make mention of it in GamerGate as being the thing which set off the whole fiasco Maybe I'll start an AFD on the issue. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, because some folks might bring this up: Grayson actually did recommend Depression Quest back in January, but the mention was incredibly cursory; it certainly was not a review. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no evidence that there were any "improper" personal relationships.
if you think that reporting on your friends without disclosing that you have a personal relationship with the subject is okay, well, journalist ethics guidelines say otherwise - Well, no, no they don't. Because being "friends" with someone doesn't mean "a personal relationship." If I go out and have a beer with someone after-hours, that is not "a personal relationship." Talking with someone on the Internet, that is not "a personal relationship." That is simply being a normal human being. As TIME notes, "To the outside world it must look silly. Surely these campaigners understand that no meaningful reporting on anything takes place without the trust—and often friendship—of people on the inside." [6] Being social is not a violation of journalistic ethics.
What the SPJ's code of ethics does prohibit is a conflict of interest. And there is no evidence of any conflict of interest. Even the potential for a perceived conflict of interest was avoided because the journalist in question wrote nothing about Quinn after beginning the relationship.
And no, the reliable sources are focusing on the intense and misogynistic harassment of Quinn. [7]. [8] [9] [10] etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Repeating the baseless gossip spread by a harassment campaign is tantamount to participating in that harassment. We have no obligation to repeat everything printed in a reliable source. Our job is to write an encyclopedic article about Zoe Quinn's life which is respectful of her privacy and dignity, as required by the WP:BLP policy. Kaldari (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate_2

This article should have a mention of, and a link to, GamerGate (not the ant!) à la Anita Sarkeesian. Full disclosure: I just wrote said article. kencf0618 (talk) 06:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

We will definitely be noting it; if you look above, there's presently a debate on what exactly we need to say about it. If you have any suggestions, I'd love to have you join in and help! More people is always better! Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
"07:18, 6 September 2014", deleted. Hm, that article sure had a short shelf life. Must have been quite a hit piece? Tarc (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the version that was deleted wasn't a bad article. Some of the previous versions were BLP violations, and some were just lists of links to news articles about the controversy, but the deleted version was sourced, and I don't think it qualified under G10. None of the deleted revisions of GamerGate were written by Kencf0618, though - Kencf0618 appears to be talking about GamerGate (2). This article was also well-sourced, and I couldn't see any potential BLP problems with it. Personally, I don't think either of the deletions were warranted under the speedy deletion policy, and I think a well-written GamerGate article may well be kept at AfD. (Although there has to be a better name than "GamerGate".) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I have put in an appeal to User:RHaworth. It seems silly for Wikipedia not to have any mention of this affair; the subsection in Video game culture (Social implications of video games) would do, but it would have to be fleshed out. kencf0618 (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
And the article's back up. A link to it would be proper.kencf0618 (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
It looks like there are still some BLP concerns about that article. Let's get that fixed first. Kaldari (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

List of Relevant Material

Per @Diego Moya:’s request in the ANI, and in the interest of moving the article forward, I have compiled a list of things which I feel are relevant and can be sourced.

No, it was not removed by accident. You have continuously posted material that makes claims not in sources or beyond what the sources say. In this case, the very same source you are using [11] states clearly that is not proven that Zoe Quinn requested the material be removed, and word it as an allegation, not a fact. Yet you continue to state that it was. Read and stick to the sources, or we need to kill this entire discussion. - Bilby (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The copyright takedown notice has Zoe Quinn's address and phone number on it (blacked out for obvious reasons). Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The copyright takedown notice was a scan posted by the person who is claiming that Quinn forced his video to be removed - he's not a reliable source. The reliable source describes it as an allegation. We stick to that. - Bilby (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The takedown of MundaneMatt's video caused John Bain to comment on the issue and condemn censorship; Bain subsequently become the target of harassment by Zoe Quinn’s supporters. Source: New Media Rockstars
  • The censorship of the video caused InternetAristocrat to make several videos documenting the incident, one of which received over 750,000 views. Sources: >New Media Rockstars, can cite video itself on itself for view count.
    • We really, really don't care that someone made a YouTube video about this. It's the opposite of a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
      • YouTube videos are not infrequently noted in articles if they are relevant; the video in question was linked from a number of sources of coverage. IIRC the Project Chanology page mentions the YouTube videos which were related to that nonsense. It is potentially relevant. Could be removed, though; what do others think? Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Lack of coverage of the scandal by several major websites lead to additional charges of a media blackout and a coverup of corruption by gamers. Source: Bright Side of News
  • Kotaku released a press release defending Grayson, confirming that he was in a romantic relationship with Zoe Quinn but stating that it started after he wrote the article about Zoe Quinn. Source: Kotaku
  • GamesNosh’s webhost asked that they remove a post documenting the scandal and the ensuing coverup. Source: Bright Side of News, can possibly source GamesNosh itself as it noted the issue and it is about itself?
  • Zoe Quinn claimed that her personal life was no one else’s business and refused to address the validity of the complaints laid against her, save to note that Grayson had not written a review of Depression Quest. Source: GamesNosh, could possibly cite Zoe’s post itself as well as it was about herself and her reaction? Possibly could site some other sources as well?
    • This is classic "guilty until proven innocent" nonsense. "GamesNosh" is not remotely an acceptable reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
      • She said exactly this, they sourced it TO Zoe Quinn herself, they link to her statement in the article, and GamesNosh has an editorial staff. Why are they not even remotely a RS? Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Because they've been around for not even one year, have no staff listing on their website beyond "GamesNosh™ is a wholly owned website and content platform maintained and created by Christopher Heeley" and it has no known and established reputation for fact-checking and editorial integrity. Their "Staff tweets" box contains no tweets from anyone not named Chris Heeley. That suggests that GamesNosh is basically his personal blog with perhaps a few guest posts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Zoe Quinn reported that she had become the subject of harassment. Source: The Daily Beast, Daily Dot, lots of other potential sources
  • Several journalists associated with feminism and the social justice movement claimed that the scandal and harassment was motivated by sexism and misogyny. Sources: The Daily Beast, Daily Dot, lots of other potential sources
  • Other journalists beseeched gamers to focus on the men involved in the scandal instead of Zoe Quinn. Source: [Slate

Those seem to be the relevant facts: what happened, who was involved, what the reaction was. Thoughts? Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

All this seems comprehensive and well-researched enough. I support adding it. Considering Quinn was a virtual unknown before these incidents, this information is pertinent to the article. JQ (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
What is in the article now is sufficient enough detail to describe the events at hand; a female game dev's personal information was leaked by an ex-bf, who also made salacious claims regarding a relationship with a journalist. The information leaked has been used to harass her and her family, and that unknown parties have hacked at least one of her accounts to post more harassing information. The only real thing that could see expansion here is the general theme of harassment and misogyny that women in the gaming industry are subjected to. As reliable sources, e.g. here, begin to tie together the plight of Quinn, Sarkeesian, and others...that is where the article can be fleshed out more. Not in the reprinting of potentially defamatory claims by the subject's ex, not in the the twitter/4chan-sphere of gamers' claiming quid pro quo in the journalist's coverage of the subject's game. Tarc (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Given that the entire reason the incident became noteworthy rather than yet another stupid fight between SJWs and gamers was because of who she slept with, it is very hard to omit that information. At the very least Grayson should be mentioned, as his involvement was a major flashpoint and drew an official response from Kotaku. Incidentally, the initial reports of her harassment re: Depression Quest are somewhat problematic in that they are not independent of the source; all the claims came from Quinn herself, which is generally a problem as far as reliable sources go - we try to avoid such, and it was noted by several folks that there was no independent confirmation of said harassment. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, the "she's probably just making it all up" defense, which is only a shade below "she was asking for it". Seriously, educate yourself. Tarc (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
While I am an uninvolved-editor, Tarc, your comment seems to verge on being both uncivil towards Titanium Dragon and logically-fallacious, as you don't respond to their concerns and instead proffer what's debateably a non sequitur. I'm endeavouring to assume good faith (AGF) on your part, but it's challenging to do so when such open condescension and hostility is manifest. Not to mention that you (unintentionally?) misrepresent TD's comment and post w/ quotes some pretty incendiary language to make it seem like TD said this! Why? I'd strongly encourage you to "check yourself before you wreck yourself" as the saying goes - pause, and check-in with TD, who you don't seem to be treating with the collegial respect and professionalism that their authentic efforts to contribute to Wikipedia merit. Azx2 04:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The point is that independent confirmation or other evidence is important. There is a plethora of evidence for the most recent round of harassment. The original round of harassment was reported by Quinn and, as far as I can tell, never confirmed by any secondary source, and has since been questioned by several; they simply repeated Quinn's claims uncritically. This is an issue because it lacks independent sourcing, and Quinn herself didn't present evidence of said harassment. Having multiple independent sources is important for reliably sourcing stuff and creating notability; if a bunch of newspapers just copy each others' news stories, that isn't multiple independent sources, it is a single source copied multiple times. This is an issue with AP reports at times as well. This is, in fact, part of the problem with Zoe Quinn's notability, as I have noted previously; the article probably shouldn't have existed before this whole nonsense happened, and frankly, if it hadn't existed before all this nonsense happened, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation on Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
We don't require independent confirmation of reliable sources, either in their choice or analysis of primary sources. If we did, every reference—every single reference on Wikipedia—would be somehow unconfirmed until another reliable source came along and interviewed the same person, performed the same analysis, etc. I seriously doubt any tertiary source would abide by such an unrealistic (and unnecessary) standard, as it is literally impossible in many cases. Reliable sources are considered reliable because we trust their judgment. Woodroar (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
We trust reliable sources because they check their facts (among other things), which is part of why we look for places with editors, editorial standards, ect. and don't use random blog posts. For example, The Escapist notes that they don't fact check claims of harassment, which means that The Escapist would not be a RS for such (and kind of raises questions about their reliability in general, but that is neither here nor there). This is especially an issue when it comes to biased sources, and if there is evidence that facts aren't being checked, then they aren't really reliable. This can also be an issue if outlets are simply re-reporting things which are reported on other sites, as it can generate information out of nothing and result in an odd game of telephone. We try to use the best sources possible so that we can communicate verifiable, accurate information on notable subjects. There are plenty of "reliable sources" which claim that Obama was born in Kenya, but we don't say "Obama was born in Kenya" in the main article about Barack Obama because A) other, better sources say that he was born in Hawaii (and indeed, there is primary documentation of such) and B) because the sources which claim otherwise are biased sources. We do report on the Birther conspiracy theory, but we don't present their claims as truth. When reliable sources contradict each other, what do we do? You know the answer as well as I do - we try to be accurate, and if the thing is actually a source of conflict potentially report on it. Or possibly not report on it at all if it isn't clear if it is important yet or not, or if the situation is unclear. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
We have never, to my knowledge, required reliable sources to fact-check individual stories or to state whether they have done so, or declined a source because they didn't consider fact-checking necessary. Sources simply must have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS) or a "professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments" (WP:V). We have plenty of articles with statements based on an unnamed witness, for example, and have not required assurance that this witness was vetted. A reliable source states it, we trust them, and so we report it as such. Woodroar (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
You apparently haven't edited much at controversial topics if you haven't seen the reliability of a source challenged. Reliability is always contextual and relative to the particular claims supported by the reference (it's there in the guideline: see Definition of a source and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, "the piece of work itself can affect reliability" and "the reliability of a source depends on context"). When one claim in a presumed RS is contradicted by an incompatible claim in other RSs, editors look at the evidence on how the sources have arrived to their conclusions - if the source asserts that they have fact checked the claim and that they have an editorial process in place, we usually trust them; but if they don't, then we use them by attributing the claim as WP:RSOPINION, or not at all. This is exactly how reliability is evaluated and the reason why the Reliable sources/Noticeboard exists. If the contradicting claims are made from sources of equivalent reliability, we report both claims per WP:NPOV, or none of them. Diego (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Collapsing comments not tied to specific article improvements and subsequent responses. Per WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TPG, this talk page is for discussion of article improvements, not general discussion about the subject.--Cúchullain t/c 15:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Fundamentally there are more or less four "narratives" here:
  • The so-called "social justice" point of view, that all the attacks on Zoe Quinn are because of misogyny and sexism. In their defense, there is plenty of very nasty language being directed at Zoe Quinn and her supporters.
  • The "anti-SJW" contingent, who feel that Zoe Quinn and her compatriots are attempting to hijack gaming journalism and protect themselves from criticism while acting as bullies to others, hiding behind the shield of social justice and suppressing negative coverage about themselves in the name of promoting the cause.[Redacted]
  • The "gaming journalism is corrupt" point of view, that this is a symptom of the larger issue of corruption in the gaming industry, and this incident brought it to a head. These folks tend to focus more on Grayson and the indie gaming community [Redacted]. In their defense, two websites ended up changing their policies as regards journalistic disclosure and what stories writers were allowed to write on as a result of this, and Kotaku felt it was necessary to defend Grayson against allegations of impropriety.
  • The "there are no angels" point of view, that this is an ugly internet fight between two groups of people who hate each other with a third group of people trying to use the scandal to advance their own agenda. In their defense, see the three narratives above.
This makes it very important that we keep an eye on our sources in this case and make sure that we avoid letting any biases in our sources creep into the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Even more important would be if we observed WP:NOTFORUM. Everyone should stick to plausible proposals regarding the article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I've restored the above comments, minus the BLP violations. Discussing the approaches to cover the topic is part of the process for building the article. In this case, building an analysis of the existing and document-able viewpoints is necessary to ensure that the article is WP:NPOV compliant, and the above comment is a valid first step for that. Diego (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I dislike redacting comments, because they no longer represent what the author said. That said, this is simple opinion, and not particularly useful. It is also partially inaccurate: the two publications which changed their policies did so for reasons incidental to Quinn - one was unrelated, and the other was not because of actions by Quinn, but by the journalist. - Bilby (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Everyone needs to keep in mind the WP:NOTAFORUM policy and the talk page guidelines. All discussions need to focus on prospective article improvements; editors' personal opinions and interpretations are inappropriate.--Cúchullain t/c 15:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm quite aware of that. But as I've explained several times at this talk page, identifying the points of view expressed by the available sources is not done for enjoyment of small talk or to express ourselves, it has the ultimate goal of ensuring compliance of the article with core content policy. I would call guaranteeing such compliance an article improvement. Diego (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Much of the conversation above is just editorializing about the story, not proposing specific, actionable article improvements. This is not appropriate and further comments of that nature will be removed.--Cúchullain t/c 15:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It would be more constructive that you engaged in analyzing the issues that other editors have raised in order to achieve consensus, rather than stretching the limits of WP:TALKNO. Do you have anything to contribute with respect to the differing points of view by which reliable sources are covering this topic? Diego (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to become involved in editing the article at this time, but I'll help make sure it and this talk page are free of BLP and other policy violations. What will be most "constructive" will be for editors to use this talk page to discuss specific, reliably sourced improvements to the article rather than their own feelings and interpretations. Stick to that and there won't be a problem.--Cúchullain t/c 17:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Cuchullain but since there are BLP issues with the specifics of the many threads of this controversy without slightly vaguer discussions to narrow the scope of the content appropriate for the article how do you propose we start making actionable article improvements without riskiing violating WP:BLP? SPACKlick (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Carefully, as you should with any BLP. Suggest reasonable, productive changes you want to make along with the reliable sources that support them, and if there's consensus they will be included. Avoid general discussion about the topic or using the talk page as a forum for expressing your personal opinions.--Cúchullain t/c 16:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
It should be noted that The Escapist has since published an admission that it failed to fact-check the Wizardchan story, and they've revised their policies so that everything must be fact-checked before publication, so they are indeed a reliable source. Ironically, many other anti-GamerGate sources that are normally considered reliable would be disqualified for referencing in this article if the criteria for their reliability were "did they fact-check the Wizardchan incident"; they have not even acknowledged the oversight. Let's not go there. One slip-up is not a reason for disqualification as an RS. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Further mainstream coverage.

Several days on GamerGate is receiving widening mainstream media coverage, including from the business press.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20140906VL200.html

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/zoe-quinns-depression-quest

Furthermore the full chat log from the IRC channel #burgersandfries has been released and partially analyzed (inasmuch as it's 3,756 pages, in 10-point type, of chaotic overlapping IRC conversations).

http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/09/08/zoe-quinns-screenshots-of-4chans-dirty-tricks-were-just-the-appetizer-heres-the-first-course-of-the-dinner-directly-from-the-irc-log/

http://puu.sh/boAEC/f072f259b6.txt

These citations should be folded into the article as appropriate. Thank you. kencf0618 (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Wehuntedthemammoth is not a reliable source. 2. Aren't the IRC logs original research? Unless the IRC logs can be confirmed by a reliable source as pertaining to current goings-on, they should not be included. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/new-chat-logs-show-how-4chan-users-pushed-gamergate-into-the-national-spotlight/ is a more reliable, if biased and inaccurate, source that references the logs. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Also The Fine Young Capitalists gave an interview regarding Zoe Quinn's attacks/doxxing of them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure that this is a reliable source and it would certainly seem unacceptable for making claims of a derogatory nature about a living person. There is no apparent effort to report upon or vet the claims made about Quinn; it is simply an uncritical recitation of TFYC's claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
This is true of the New Yorker article about Zoe Quinn, and indeed, a large number of the articles about Zoe Quinn from the "it is all misogyny" point of view; as in all such cases, we have to use such sources with care, as they are fundamentally just repeating what they were told rather than doing independent investigation. The issue regarding The Fine Young Capitalists has been mentioned in a number of sources. We presently note what Zoe Quinn's opinion on the matter is in the article (that it is all a conspiracy by 4Chan). It is potentially usable as a source for TFYC's view on it/claims about it, as they were swept up in it and ended up raising tens of thousands of dollars as a direct result of it. It was a part of this whole debacle, so is potentially worth noting. I agree about unsureness of it being a RS; the site does have an editorial staff apparently, which is usually a good sign, but I'm not super familiar with the source. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Zoe Quinn's statements do not make specific claims about any particular living person, but instead make claims of a general nature against a larger group of people. By their very nature, we treat such statements differently than we treat direct accusations against a specific person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd say the New Yorker is the only really strong source out of all of these, although arstehcnica is pretty respectable as well. We should not be using primary sources like this: leave the analysis of the chat logs to the media. -- TaraInDC (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Cinemablend references the APGnation interview and does some original research to establish veracity. /Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willhesucceed (talk • contribs) 09:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
And, notably, the CinemaBlend article does not mention anything about Quinn. Which suggests that for whatever reason, CinemaBlend did not feel comfortable repeating TFYC's specific allegations about her. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Protection

This particular protection instance is over. Dreadstar ☥ 03:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've protected the page due to today's edit warring, which has BLP implications. Use this time to hammer out any wording changes and additions here on the talk page.--Cúchullain t/c 15:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little disappointed you referred to today's events as edit warring. There were 1, 2, 3, 4 changes (6 if you include disputed tags), one of which was mine which was followed by a prompt trip to the talk page to discuss the matter [and admit I was mistaken in my revert]. Since the last revert all involved had come to the talk page to discuss it (bar Edward321). How as this an Edit War? I'm not saying some time to work things out a bit better on the talk page is a bad idea but I reject the applied label. SPACKlick (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The bulk of edits today (and part of last night) have been editors reverting each other. That's an edit war, and it's made worse by the potential BLP implications of most of those changes. I'll lift the full protection if editors here come to an agreement on what should be changed, otherwise this week will be a good oportunity for all sides to make their proposals without the worry of disrupting the mainspace.--Cúchullain t/c 17:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Really this has been the case for several days at this point. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
This should be semi-protected now and the words "harassment" should be replaced with "backlash". --Artman40 (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Surely you can point to a majority of the reliable sources which are now describing what happened to Quinn as "backlash," then? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Al-Jazeera source

Any thoughts about the article put out by Al-Jazeera? http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201409032102-0024126 Citation Needed | Citation Needed 22:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no byline. It isn't journalism or even an OpEd, it is just a "these people tweeted X" and "those people instagrammed Y" collation of data. Tarc (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Not certain how useful it is for this article, given he sources we already have but it seems a reasonably well sourced summary of the GamerGate trend with some information which will probably be in this article, although as I say sourced to articles dealing with how the overall controversy directly relates to Zoe Quinn. Good find though. SPACKlick (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Tarc, you obviously have no idea what journalism is and should remove yourself from this article. I've already forwarded my concerns to your superiors. Trying to control history is not your job. TheNewMinistry (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Erm, "forwarded my concerns to your superiors"? There are no such things. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
It's ok, gamer types need to blow off steam sometimes. The point was, it simply isn't an actual "article", it is just list of personal tweets and opinion of random people. It may be interesting to read, but it is really of no value to this Wikipedia article. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Tarc, you are clearly biased, demonstrated by you accusing me of being a "gamer", a term made derogatory in recent days by the Zoe Quinn camp and her supporters. You are biased, and your position requires you to be unbiased. That is a conflict of interest and you should remove yourself from this matter entirely. TheNewMinistry (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Given that every single one of your edits about Zoe Quinn (both here and on the Pay To Play article) has had to be revision-deleted due to BLP concerns, I suspect it is unlikely that Tarc is the one that should remove themselves from this matter. Please don't step over that line again. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
"Administrators assume these responsibilities as volunteers who go through a community review process. They are not acting as employees of the Wikimedia Foundation. They are never required to use their tools, and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators Continue violating your own policies, gentlemen. TheNewMinistry (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Protecting a page because of concerns over policy violations is not "becoming involved in a dispute." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Tarc has been restricted from editing other articles which had to do with social justice-related persons/issues in the past (specifically re: Manning and transgendred people) due to his ill behavior, and has been consistently aggressive here as well. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
@TheNewMinistry, there's no requirement that editors are not biased, nor that they recuse from editing; the only thing forbidden is pushing your bias into the article. I'm biased, you're biased and the references we use are all biased, so Tarc can participate too. Neutrality is expected to happen from the process of confronting the opposing views, and what we call neutral is itself a bias towards verifiable content (as opposed to The Truth) and diversity of views, which we expect will produce content valid for all readers.
@Tarc, the source provides analysis and commentary of the GammerGate name and conversation (connecting it to Sarkeesian and Quinn) which, coming from a reliable source, provides significance so we can use it for a sentence or two describing the concept. Diego (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Kids, we're discussing the Zoe Quinn article and the al Jazeera source; if you have a problem with me or something from my past, then find the appropriate (i.e. not this one) venue in which to discuss it. Black Kite is not involved in this topic, nor with you Mr. Ministry, so he is free to take any admin action upon you or other disruptive editors as he sees fit. Any admin action can be challenged of course, so you will be free to do so when (and I'm pretty sure we're at "when" no, and not "if") you get blocked. As for gaming, I was rolling a 20-sided die likely long before most of you were born, and still do a bit of WoW and LoL in the present. It seems that the Gen X crowd has a more innate sense of respect for women that is wholly lacking in some millennials. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
@Tarc: Please be WP:CIVIL; insulting people by stating that they are misogynistic because of their age is wholly inappropriate. As for the source itself, I've been seeing an increasing use of embedded Twitter posts in news articles of late to illustrate what is going on in the world; it is very strange to see, but is probably some kind of new normal. I suspect it will continue. The article seems to be about summarizing what is going on, which seems legit. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is a reliable source and can be included as source of information in the article. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No, that article is literally nothing more than a listing of tweets. There is no reporting involved - it is nothing more than a collection of 140-character opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: No, a reliable source considered thoes 140-character opinions notable enough to include in an article. They are now secondary sourced to a reliable source and as such are worth considering. From memory there's not much in there for this article but the contents can't be dismissed out of hand. SPACKlick (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
No, it is not. There is no byline and simply including a tweet in a listing does not make it a secondary source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Why does it matter whether there's a byline? The person who put the article together has been vetted by Al Jazeera, which is a reliable source. Whether the article can contribute anything meaningful to this page is up for debate, but whether it's a reliable source is not. Willhesucceed (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Because it isn't an article, just a listing of other people's social media opinions. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
That's not quite right. The article also contains the summarizing and opinions of the journalist that wrote it. Also the act of curating those opinions that the editor deemed relevant to the story is a creative act that signals those as relevant. If the post were a collection of randomly selected comments, as those which appear on a twitter hashtag, you might have a point. If that makes you feel better, we can use only the parts of the article that don't appear within the copied tweets; the gist of the article is contained within the plain text parts anyway. Diego (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
One of the few parts of BLP I actually like is the call to look at whether facts are "presented as true". When media sources quote a "Tweet", are they saying it's true, or merely saying it was made? Unless the source actually says something in its own voice about what is true and false about the message, it actually adds almost nothing beyond what a primary source link to the message itself would say. The only impact at all is that if you end up in the position of picking some small part of a person's words to quote with no other criteria to use, the quotation suggests that particular comment is more important. Wnt (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Early life who vs. whom

This may sound silly, given the rather more important discussions above, but this edit by User:Kencf0618 (and accepted by User:Mr. Stradivarius) is grammatically incorrect. The second part of the sentence is an adjectival clause modifying or referring to "school-district officials", which are functionally the subject of that clause. (See this or this for examples.) The words "she says" are probably throwing people off, but they are a parenthetical and have no meaning in the sentence. (Grammatically, of course. I obviously wouldn't suggest removing them as they introduce the quotation.) I didn't want to revert since there are two editors arguing for it's inclusion, but it probably should be reverted. Woodroar (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem. kencf0618 (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I've never been able to get the hang of who and whom, so I tend to assume that editors whom correct my whos know what they are talking about. ;) I've no problem with it being changed to the actual correct grammar. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
What's funny is that I've got an English degree and I'm the go-to person in my circle to check cover letters and such, and I was unsure about it myself! It just sounded odd and I researched it for my own edification, completely prepared to be wrong and learn something new about clause grammar. Woodroar (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
LOL, this is a genuine foul-up in English since the 15th century - see "subject whom" under "Ambiguous cases" in Who (pronoun). Wnt (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

APGNation as a reliable source

The edit I made using the following article (http://apgnation.com/archives/2014/09/09/6977/truth-gaming-interview-fine-young-capitalist) was reverted with "Not an acceptable reliable source for allegations about living people." as the reason given.However I do not understand why this is the case. I've looked through Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_personsand the page on reliability, but can't find any reason why this should count as a poor source. It has previously been accepted as a reliable source in the much more heavily scrutinised and protected Gamergate article, so I thought that set a precedent for it being a reliable source. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding something, but i'm unsure where I went wrong. I'd be grateful for a response. Bosstopher (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The interview is considered a SPS. It can be used for specific information about the employees and TFYC, but never about another person. Woodroar (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I assume this reverting spell is over and further action is unnecessary, right?--Cúchullain t/c 23:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I do not understand why this should be considered a self published source. The page on SPS states the following are self published sources "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets," this article is none of the preceding. The interview is published by a gaming news site that to my knowledge (correct me if i'm wrong) is in no way connected to TFYC. APGNation can also not be found on Wikipedia:List_of_companies_engaged_in_the_self-publishing_business. So I can see no reason to treat it as an SPS, unless someone can bring evidence forward that APGNation and TFYC are the same outfit.Bosstopher (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
An interview like this is no different than a republished press release or blog: it doesn't matter if the source is reliable or not, the information is still primary. Now primary sources can be used in some ways, but never about another living person and certainly not to accuse them of a crime. About the only situation where I could imagine that we'd allow an interview would be with, say, a judge or other official commenting on a person already found guilty in court, and even then it would be best to find a reliable source commenting on the verdict. Woodroar (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that then. Didn't realise. In that case are there any objections to using the existing Vice source on the page, to bring up the fact that accusations of sabotage have been brought against Quinn? (the vice source makes no mention of the transphobia accusations against TFYC) Just simply writing that there's a dispute between the two groups doesnt really explain much. Bosstopher (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Not when the article says "a Reddit user claimed that Quinn purposely sabotaged..." We don't care what a random anonymous person on another anonymous Internet board said. The claim is insufficiently notable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)While it's true that saying there's a dispute is frustratingly vague, simply saying that she's 'been accused' is WP:WEASEL wording, because the source says 'a Reddit user claimed that Quinn purposely sabotaged [etc.]'. Accusations of behavior, especially criminal behavior, absolutely needs much much stronger sources than a single-sentence comment about what an unnamed and likely anonymous reddit user says. Additionally, saying 'has been accused' is itself very vague, as by leaving out who is doing the accusing, it's implying-without-stating that these accusations have a legitimacy and weight that is not precisely found in the source. Vagueness is preferable to violating BLP or rumormonger. Grayfell (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It's acceptable to use that source as a reference for the actual statements made by TFYC. Following the mention of the dispute with a quote (similar to what immediately follows with the inclusion of Zoe's quote from the Cracked article) would be fine. It just needs to be clear that person X is making statement Y, backed up by source Z -- not a bare statement of Y backed up by source Z. Make sense?Zyxwab (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked this SPA (first and only edit) because in context the username is unacceptable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. Zyxwab (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Rather than add this directly to the article and potentially ruffle more feathers, I thought maybe working on it here made more sense. I'm suggesting something like the following:

Part of the controversy centered on a dispute she had with the group The Fine Young Capitalists over its women in video games project. Group founder, Matthew Rappard characterized the dispute as follows:

Zoe Quinn has probably been the largest problem to this production even before it existed... <redacted per BLP>. We strongly suggest people should be very careful when dealing with her.

The same reference that Bosstopher provided ([12]) — while not acceptable as a source for the claim that Zoe lied, misrepresented information, etc. — is acceptable as a source for quoting Matthew Rappard's accusations that Zoe lied, misrepresented information, etc. which serves to characterize the dispute in more detail while making it clear who is making what accusations, and that they're merely accusations. Does that seem okay? --Zyxwab (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite simply, no. I have redacted this per WP:BLP. These claims have not been reported in any reliable source and it is unacceptable to present primary-sourced assertions that amount to criminal allegations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, I don't see how that makes any sense. Of course we're allowed to quote other people who make such allegations — so long as the point is the quotation itself, and not the assertions being made. It's certainly not okay to present such sources as justifications for claims that Zoe lied, misrepresented facts, kicked puppies, or whatever she's being accused of. But there's nothing wrong with objectively reporting on the fact that a particular person (in this case Matthew Rappard) has made those claims as part of a dispute with Zoe, where that dispute itself is relevant. If you think that the text I suggested doesn't adequately emphasize that it's Rappard being quoted, then I'm open to suggestions on how to improve that. But to say that we're not allowed to provide details of a dispute presented as mere allegations is absurd. Of course that's allowed. You can find countless examples all over Wikipedia, in ever major news story where two people are in disagreement, etc. Further censoring other people's comments on this talk page — when it is being made abundantly clear in the course of the discussion itself that nobody here is asserting the claims being made but merely quoting them as illustration of what the dispute mentioned in the article is all about — is even more absurd. How would you suggest expanding on the "dispute she had with the group" without actually going into detail of the accusations? I'm really getting the feeling here that you're digging in your heels because you're concerned that if you give an inch, somebody is going to take a mile and start trying to insert all sorts of direct attacks or smears. (I don't mean that as an accusation of bad faith, but rather as an attempt to express empathy toward or at least understanding of such a position) I assure you that such is absolutely not my intention, at least, and if I see that happening I'll gladly join you in opposing it. I just want details of the dispute included, in as neutral way as possible. Instead of quoting Rappard, maybe some sort of phrasing along the lines of "Rappard has accused Zoe of such-and-such" or something, to get the word "accused" in there more prominently? --Zyxwab (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to read the biographies of living persons policy. The issue here is that TFYC's claims have not been published in a reliable secondary source. Our content policies are specifically stringent when publishing negative material about a living person, and what we have now fails to live up to the standard. APGNation does not have a significant history of fact-checking and editorial credibility and is, at this point, little better than a self-published source. Moreover, the source article is not a reported news story about the issue; rather, it is simply a verbatim first-person interview with no apparent effort to fact-check any of the claims or examine whether or not they are supported by evidence. Given the sensitivity of the issue and the indisputably-highly-negative nature of the allegations, we are prohibited from using this material in the encyclopedia.
Perhaps inadvertently, you said the magic words above that are the crux of this situation: major news story. Major news stories, by definition, have an array of reliable sources available which provide fact-checking, editorial oversight and perspective on the issue. They verify for us that the issue is a matter of significant public interest. These reliable sources enable us to write about sensitive interpersonal disputes in a fair-minded manner, confident that we are telling a story which needs to be told.
This is not a "major news story." This is not even a news story at this point. We do not have any reliable sources which can be used to write about the issue. As far as Wikipedia goes, that's that — we do not write about things that are not first written about in reliable sources.
If reliable sources such as mainstream media, etc. begin to discuss the issue and significantly report on it, this can be revisited at that point. If the dispute is never reported upon in reliable sources, then it is not a fit subject for inclusion in Quinn's biography. Wikipedia is not a repository of anything and everything ever said about a person; we write encyclopedic biographies based upon what reliable sources say about their subjects. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I am familiar with the relevant Wikipedia policies, including BLP. My point is that detailing the accusations as accusations is not in and of itself negative. There's no reason to exclude it. The interview on the referenced website is a suitable source for quotations from the person being interviewed. There's no need for fact checking (unless you're saying there's reason to believe the interview itself was fabricated) because we're not trying to insert any claims that Zoe did any of those things, merely that she has been accused of doing those things by Rappard, and that those accusations lie at the heart of the dispute mentioned in the article. However, reading over that section again I'm now of a different opinion as to how it might be improved. I didn't notice the first time around that the timeline of events is a bit strange; the dispute with Rappard occurred before the blog entry posted by Zoe's ex-boyfriend. There were other events during that time (including several episodes of previous harassment) and the timeline of everything isn't exactly clear. What's more, there are other issues raised as part of the most recent controversy, including the whole Kotaku thing, donations via Patreon by journalists, etc. — which are all well documented, and which probably merit mention. I think going into detail on every single one of those issues is not at all appropriate, since many of the issues are almost certainly being raised insincerely merely to keep the controversy going. But I think a more detailed list of all of the issues raised (particularly the ones that have been addressed by journalistic outlets like Kotaku and changes to policies on Patreon donations by some publications) would probably be a better way of providing context and detail than delving deeper into detail on any particular issue. Put another way: the sentence on the dispute with Rappard seemed odd to me because of the lack of detail and context, but rather than expand on that one dispute I now think maybe a better way to provide context would be to list other issues related to the controversy but with the same high-level summary-type detail. Does that make more sense to you? --Zyxwab (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you're familiar with the policy, actually. Detailing negative accusations made by someone is inherently negative. I don't know how to make it any clearer. Wikipedia biographies do not serve as a clearinghouse for republication of every instance someone made "allegations" or "accusations" about someone else. Until and unless the matter is documented in reliable mainstream sources, it's not going in.
If you believe the wording can be improved in certain sections of the article, please feel free to make those proposals here. I'll be happy to help implement them if there's a consensus that they improve the article.
We already have an extensive article on GamerGate; details about the controversy that are unrelated to Quinn belong there, not here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I helped write the policy, years ago. I've been an editor here (on and off.. mostly off these past few years) since 2001. I just create throwaway accounts nowadays (and then forget what the names and/or passwords are when they auto-logout in 30 days) because I only edit a few times a year anymore. So don't you lecture me on policy, youngster. :) There is nothing inherently negative about reporting on accusations that are part of a dispute, so long as the dispute itself is deemed appropriate for inclusion. Look, I understand that we can't just include every random accusation somebody makes. But that's not what's going on here. If the dispute between Zoe and Rappard is noteworthy, then it's appropriate to include the details of that dispute. Whether that makes for a good article or not, I'm more on the fence. I haven't looked at the GamerGate article yet, but I'll take a look and see if maybe even the Rappard dispute is better moved over there. I know it happened earlier, but it's probably only noteworthy now because it became a bigger issue as part of the overall recent controversy. I'm leaning in the direction of a timeline actually being a better method of organizing some of this information, since the ordering of events is not only hard to follow, but demonstrates to some degree just how arbitrary the set of complaints are that have been raised by certain folks. It also shows a pattern of harassment. --Zyxwab (talk) 06:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Odd, then, that you don't seem to have a grasp of how to properly thread talk page discussions.
Be that as it may, taking an anon throwaway at face value... you don't appear to have a grasp of how the policy is interpreted today. The ArbCom decisions haven't gotten any more lenient since the policy was adopted and the community consensus has only gotten stronger that material about or involving living people must be written sensitively and with impeccable sourcing.
In short, the material you wish to add is, today, right now, prohibited by the BLP policy. Full stop, that's all there is to it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Forbes has noted some of the dispute between Zoe Quinn and The Fine Young Capitalists here, which also noted the allegations of sexual harassment by Zoe Quinn (and the subsequent attack on the person who alleged sexual harassment by Quinn's supporters), as well as the hacking of TFYC's Indiegogo campaign by her supporters.

Cinemablend made note of the interview that TFYC gave, and noted some of the stuff they spoke about, as well as the fact that they had been doxxed. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The words "Zoe Quinn" appear not a single time in this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
"Earlier this year they tried launching the Game Jam to help get more women into gaming, but ran into opposition from a group who felt as if the whole thing was “transphobic”". Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't say "Zoe Quinn." You can't read words into a source that aren't there, no matter how much you'd like to. For whatever reason, CinemaBlend made an editorial decision not to discuss Zoe Quinn in the context of that article. Ergo, it's of no relevance to an article about Zoe Quinn. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
This source appears to be by far the most cogent set of allegations against Quinn that is out there (which, to be sure, is not a hard contest to win). For Wikipedia to do its job and produce an accurate article about the controversy, people must feel free on our talk page to list these allegations and go through and see what the evidence is for them; then decide what of that evidence amounts to enough of a reliable source making an allegation presented as true to be worth including in the article. And to be clear, there are a lot of gray areas and generalizations going on here which permit multiple interpretations.
Specifically --- I hope this doesn't run afoul of the ever-hungrier censors around here --- there is an allegation that she "retweeted" a comment by someone else that led (I haven't checked how directly) to "dox" on somebody or another, which is summarized "she doxxed us". This is a pretty peculiar doctrine -- tied in, I suppose, to the very widespread legal idiocy of blaming people for violations of copyright, hacking, etc. merely by linking to source materials -- in theory, God knows how many people here have "doxxed" various people involved, if not everyone involved, by linking to things that by hook or crook wend their way to these source documents. But there's also an aspect of the disgusting inequality and commercialism of the modern internet, with its atomized, unsorted, unthreaded comments that go unheard unless the right people talk about them; for one person to "tweet" something is without effect and for another to do so is practically to publish it. I think, seriously, there is a Ph.D. thesis (not the kind that gets you a job, though) in the question of whether that tweet was a "doxxing" or not, and if so, what if any ethical principles govern it. In any case, this is certainly not a high crime or misdemeanor, and Wikipedia should feel free to delve in as deep as the sources go to try to figure it out. Wnt (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources

This article uses some really poor sources as-is. We should make an effort to source this stuff to less WP:BIASED sources where possible. Vice should probably be replaced with Cinemablend or Forbes, both of which discuss the issue with TFYC and her attack on them. We should also note the Grayson and journalism thing. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Odd that the source which presents a POV you disagree with is biased while the source which presents a POV you agree with is unbiased. On what grounds do you state that CinemaBlend is superior to Vice? Vice is actually a widely-circulated dead-tree print publication that's been around for 20 years, and has a reputable history.
I have no problem adding more sources, but I object to the removal of perfectly-acceptable ones. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The words "Zoe Quinn" appear not a single time in the CinemaBlend article you suggest as a source. Not sure why you think it's relevant or an improvement to use a source that doesn't discuss the subject of this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I have a pretty simple rule on sources: more sources is better than fewer sources. If you can come up with better sources, add them. But the more controversial the article and the more varied the POVs of those writing about it, the more important it is to preserve every source that meets the minimum criteria for reliability. The existence of a better source does not make those criteria any stricter than they were to start with. (I also do have to confirm that I don't see the subject mentioned in the CinemaBlend article, so its relevance is not obvious. Maybe it could provide useful background information but ... I don't follow the story well enough.) Wnt (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: That's not Forbes proper, it's their user-generated-content material, it's not a staff piece. "Contributors" are usually unpaid and there's no editorial oversight on individual pieces. You (any random editor) could probably start writing for them and put up a piece in a similar way. It shouldn't be used as a source for material about living people. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's the right standard. So long as there is an editorial process, it doesn't matter whether the authors are professional journalists. When I look at the "list of new posts", these are not simply people spouting off in Usenet fashion; they seem to be pretty well-polished, like someone is carefully controlling what goes out. I don't think either should really be treated as "self-published" or "user-generated". That said, there could be (as with a student newspaper) serious questions about reliability of these sources, but let's be clear this is an evaluation of source quality rather than its overall classification. Wnt (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes level 2

Why has pending changes level 2 being applied? There is no consensus to use it per WP:PC2012/RfC_1. Retartist (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes for the articles recently hit by the "GamerGate" disruption were discussed at ANI here as a way to avoid having to leave them under full protection for extended periods of time. Indefinited semi-protection hasn't been effective, considering that much of the disruption has been coming from autoconfirmed accounts, not just anons and new accounts, but not one wants to leave pages fully protected for long periods.--Cúchullain t/c 03:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
"GamerGate disruption" might be a needed term in the Wikipedia lexicon. I certainly haven't seen this sort of cross-contamination before. kencf0618 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
@Cuchullain: The link cited above Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive854#Anita_Sarkeesian.2C_again has no direct discussion of using PC2 at all. It is a mechanism that we never wanted, imposed from above, and now being imposed here from above. On Wikipedia, consensus is defined as an edict from above. Wnt (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion was archived here. A number of users supported pending changes to protect these articles, and in fact some didn't believe it was strong enough. If you don't like explanation, consider it an ignore all rules response to a very serious BLP issue at this article, that is less restrictive than long-term full protection.--Cúchullain t/c 22:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I see endorsements for flagged revisions in that ANI discussion. Let's not let petty political feelings about the WMF interfere with good judgement, Wnt. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Three people supporting "flagged revisions" is a far cry from explicit support for PC2, a mechanism without support for use on the site at all. Nor is this a matter of "petty political feelings"; it concerns whether a community of people can edit the article to collect the available information, or whether its development is to be imposed, top-down, by admins who override community decisions on what mechanisms are used let alone what content is allowed, and who suppress any fact from the available sources that they want, whether in proposed revisions, history of the article, or discussion. Is Wikipedia a crowdsourced encyclopedia, or an exercise in top-down media spin with a little suggestion box where editors can blindly insert their observations and see if the Company wants to use them or throw them away unread? Wnt (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I've been thoroughly inactive for the most part due to my stress of editing Wikipedia but what I will state is that the guiding policy here is WP:CONLIMITED. Your small consensus (even giving you that) at WP:ANI cannot override the overall community's non consensus of implementation of level 2 protection. Even the most conflated, disputed, and nastily edited articles are fine with semi protection. There is no need to have pending level 2. Your false choice of 'full protection or pending level 2 protection' is also not appreciated in the least. Semi protection is the staple and semi protection I will support. Tutelary (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Not to state the obvious, because I'm sure you checked the protection logs before posting, but semi-protection didn't work. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
This page is for discussing the editorial content of the article, not each other. If you have issues with the behavior of another editor, take it to your user talk pages and follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Dreadstar ☥ 02:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well, lucky for us that your status as a community pariah means that your opinion, esp in this topic area, is pretty much ignored. Due to the ongoing campaign of harassment against the subject, harassment that is also occurring on this page and others by socks and SPAs, the level of increased protection is quite justified. Tarc (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Tarc, when you make a personal attack against someone and it is reverted, you take full responsibility for when you revert it. Don't restore it again. Additionally, the edit summary 'troll' is implying that I am to be dismissed. Stop attacking other editors, Tarc. Tutelary (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec with a comment Tarc may have just deleted?)

Actually, status as a non-administrator (and indeed, as a non-oversighter, non-Arbitrator etc.) is what means your opinion is ignored. Those with the power (however much that is) have started doing whatever they want with it, and consensus is defined as whatever they dictate. This is a strict hierarchy, and "ignore all rules" is indeed the policy of the day --- but it applies only to those with the power to do so. Wnt (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Tarc insulted me so I removed it. In any case, you are entirely right. IAR is only invoked to explain a controversial administrator action which cannot be removed by normal users under the guise of 'improving the encylopedia'. Tutelary (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
As we are seeing today, it is quite necessary. Tarc (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Not really. Insulting other users and demeaning them as outcasts is not appreciated. Tutelary (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Look, given the ongoing disruption and the particular problems at this page, protection is a necessity, and it would be full protection if it wasn't this. It's an atypical solution for an atypical problem.--Cúchullain t/c 17:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Cracked article

Zoe Quinn has an article on Cracked today: 5 Things I Learned as the Internet's Most Hated Person. Trivialist (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That's quite an interesting (and cogent) take on what happened, and since it's her own words we should feel free to describe its arguments at length so that people understand what she said happened. Wnt (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the quote and Cracked. Cracked is not a reliable source, and neither is Zoe Quinn. See Forbes, as you should well know, given that it has been cited in GamerGate on numerous occasions. Wikipedia is not a platform for her point of view on herself. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
You may not use this talk page to make unsupported allegations about a living person. This page is not a forum for discussion of your opinion of the article subject. I have requested revision deletion. You have been warned about this literally dozens of times.
The self-publication policy allows us to use material written by a living person about themselves, whether it is from a reliable source or not. There is no dispute that the material was written by Zoe Quinn. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Read WP:BLPSELFPUB. It is a violation of the #1 rule: it is unduly self-serving. It exists for the purpose of trying to get sympathy. It is unacceptable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not unduly self-serving. It's a personal description of events which happened to her, from her first-person perspective. There are no sources claiming that her description is incorrect, overblown or otherwise untruthful. Her description of her experience is undoubtedly useful and important in her biography. There are three people on this talk page who have said that the material is useful and usable; you obviously don't have consensus for your position. I suggest that you open an RFC if you wish to get a broader perspective. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Her first person perspective is far from neutral. Irrespective of who did right or wrong here (because I am sick and tired of hearing about who is in the right here) she is not about to portray what happened to her in a light that is in any way free of bias. If somebody were to suggest citing an article explaining why she is waste of everyone's time (and we all know hundreds of them exist online) there would be outcry of bias. But none of that exists in this article, not even so much as a section on her critics (again, hundreds of them out there). —Frosty ☃ 09:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
We are not prohibited from using biased sources. Every source has a bias. The policy expressly allows us to use self-published sources about themselves.
If you believe the section is unbalanced, then you may add a reliable source which rebuts Quinn's description of her harassment. If, as you appear to be claiming, she is not being truthful, then surely it would be trivial to find a reliable source which describes the alleged discrepancies, would it not? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
We are prohibited from doing so because of WP:NPOV, WP:BIASED, WP:BLPSELFPUB. It is unduly self-serving (thus violating BLPSELFSUB), it isn't neutral (violating NPOV), it is undue, ect. Look at other biography pages. You have been warned about this repeatedly. We can use biased sources, yes, but we cannot use them for making factual statements about things that they are claiming which fall in line with their biases. This is unacceptable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
You claim that it is "unduly self-serving" without explaining this claim; arguing by assertion is not particularly helpful. Why is it unduly self-serving? What reliable sources have stated that her description is not a truthful account of her experience?
We can use biased sources, yes, but we cannot use them for making factual statements about things that they are claiming which fall in line with their biases. This sentence makes literally no sense, and has no support in policy.
I will quote the passage here for clarity:
I watched every avenue of social media suddenly blow up with messages of abject hatred from thousands of strangers. For the first five days, I couldn't sleep. Every time I would start to doze off, I'd be shocked awake from half-asleep nightmares about everyone I love buying into the mob's bullshit and abandoning me. The ceaseless barrage of random people sending you disgusting shit is initially impossible to drown out -- it was constant, loud, and it became my life. Of course I know that this is just a small minority of the angry and disenfranchised, but I felt like it was the entire world. That's how it works -- they use sheer volume and repetition to make their numbers seem overwhelming.
The other available external reliable sources prove that Quinn was harassed. This passage makes no claims about identifiable third parties. Rather, it is an irreplaceable description of Quinn's own mindset as she was being harassed. It depicts her lived experience of being harassed in a way that no other available source can. Unless there are any reliable sources which dispute her statements of her lived experience, we have no grounds to question the veracity of these statements as an accurate depiction of her thoughts and feelings about being the subject of extensive harassment. The passage illuminates for the readers what it is like to be harassed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. She isn't claiming to be a rocket surgeon or making comments about another living person. These comments are entirely acceptable as WP:BLPSELFPUB. Woodroar (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@Woodroar: The purpose of the paragraph is to garner sympathy for herself. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? It is also to present herself as a victim. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? It is unacceptable. Frosty agreed this is wholly unacceptable. Look at other, similar articles about people. Do we quote most people about themselves and their experiences in their biographies? Usually not. We do use quotes sometimes, but really only for noteworthy things. And it absolutely is making comments about another living person, namely her critics. "The ceaseless barrage of random people sending you disgusting shit is initially impossible to drown out". Are those people living persons? Why yes, yes they are. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
They are not identifiable living persons. BLP does not apply to the phrases "thousands of strangers" and "random people." At any rate, it is trivial to demonstrate, based on what has been reported in mainstream reliable sources, that Quinn has been targeted by "random people sending (her) disgusting shit." That is a truthful and indisputable statement. Do I need to link to all those mainstream reliable sources again?
The purpose of the paragraph is to depict Zoe Quinn's state of mind in Zoe Quinn's biography. It is indisputably relevant to her own biography to depict her own state of mind about a significant event in her life. If you have reliable sources which disagree with this depiction, then they should be included as a rebuttal to her experience. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Our article on Barack Obama, probably one of the most scrutinized articles on Wikipedia, is filled with quotations from him. The statements are in agreement with other reliable third-party sources, and they don't name names or even allow us to guess at names, which I personally feel satisfies all of the necessary requirements. Woodroar (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but it doesn't include quotes like this. I just went through that article, and the closest thing which could be considered unduly self-serving would be in regards to his acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize. Everything else is about factual stuff (his religion, his family) which you might reasonably quote him on, or quoting him on things that he said about stuff. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Our article on Barack Obama, probably one of the most scrutinized articles on Wikipedia, is filled with quotations from him. The statements are in agreement with other reliable third-party sources, and they don't name names or even allow us to guess at names, which I personally feel satisfies all of the necessary requirements. Woodroar (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but it doesn't include quotes like this. I just went through that article, and the closest thing which could be considered unduly self-serving would be in regards to his acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize. Everything else is about factual stuff (his religion, his family) which you might reasonably quote him on, or quoting him on things that he said about stuff. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Dragon, they're right that documenting the reaction of Quinn is something relevant at the article for her own biography. She's an involved party to her life, so her opinion about how she was affected by the incident is significant.
That said, the extent at which this is covered right now is WP:UNDUE weight for a stance that has not been covered by independent secondary sources. That kind of extended material belongs at Wikiquote, not Wikipedia. The quote should be reduced to a one- or two-sentences long summary in Wikipedia voice, quoting just a few words of the highlights of the interview. Diego (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it has been covered by independent, secondary sources; I'll go ahead and add those. I trimmed the quote slightly as well. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, if there are secondary references analyzing her words, those are the ones we should be using and attributing, not the primary source. Diego (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, misunderstood. The harassment situation has been covered by independent, secondary sources, but her specific words in that article have not been analyzed by any major secondary source at this point. Just a few blogs and such. There's no secondary source available which depicts, as vividly and directly, her mindset as the victim of harassment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, then the quote really needs to be summarized, not shown in full per WP:DUE; anyone interested in her exact tone and words can follow the link and read the interview. Working on it. Diego (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but we should try to report on factual things. I think noting that she left her home is relevant. I don't think quoting a big thing about how she is oh so persecuted is acceptable. We have no awy of independently verifying her state of mind. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)(UTC)

This was also noted as being inappropriate to use as a source over on GamerGate. NorthByNorthBaranof, you specifically were told this was unacceptable to use as a source. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No, there was a consensus on that particular page that using a BLPSELFPUB source was inappropriate and unnecessary on that page. This is a different page — one specifically focused on a biography of Zoe Quinn. As the BLPSELFPUB policy points out: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities. I think it's true that the GamerGate article isn't about Zoe Quinn's activities, and the consensus on that page is probably right. In this case, we are dealing with the article that is directly and specifically about Zoe Quinn. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
For real? Even aside from SELFPUB, which clearly states that the words of the subject can be used regardless of the original source, Wikipedia is under no obligation to use only "neutral" sources. Such a goal would be impossible to obtain. All sources are biased in some degree. Now, the article must be neutral. But that's a far cry from neutral sourcing. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I've found this article at GamerGate, we could actually use that one to report on her perception of the incident. Diego (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent NPR story

This is a recent (today) story about GamerGate and Quinn from NPR: [13]. The story uses interviews with Quinn and others, so it seems like it would be useful. Grayfell (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Should we mention anywhere that Zoe Quinn isn't her real name?

I mean, apparently any mention of her real name is some redactable offense, despite her using it online in places such as linkedin, but this article gives he impression that Zoe Quinn is her actual name, which it isn't. Could we at least allude to the fact that Zoe Quinn is a pen name? Crisis.EXE 15:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Not unless a reliable source mentions that this is a case, and to my knowledge there are none that mention this. Bosstopher (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

2 protections

why is the page both semi and pending changes protected? Retartist (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Because lots and lots of vandalism, much of which has been so horrifyingly awful that it's required an admin to revdelete or oversight. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I dont think that requires 2 levels at once, won't one accomplish the job? Retartist (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
No. Semi prevents anon IP/non-autoconfirmed editors from editing at all, while pending changes means that non-logged-in users will first see the most recent "accepted" version. See Wikipedia:Pending changes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, i see now. thanks Retartist (talk) 06:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Pornographic image

Can someone deal with the pornographic image here? Jonathan Williams (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It's happened with a lot of articles, even on Jimbo's talk page (and his userpage). Jennifer Lawrence, main page...gah, this is gonna become common, I just know it. Removed the image until commons is sorted out. Tutelary (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Some jackhole on Commons uploaded that over the old image. Let's leave the image out entirely for the moment until that gets revision-deleted over there. Tarc (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Turns out that commons semi protection isn't as adequate as en.wiki's, all you have to do is be more than 4 days old and you're autoconfirmed. (rather than 10 edits and 4 days here) So even if the image had been semi'd, it wouldn't have mattered. The person has been blocked and the revisions deleted, if you want to restore the image. Tutelary (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

First Television Interview

Zoe Quinn's interview on Ronan Farrow Daily was her first TV interview ever, and to date her only TV interview. As such it is a salient and unique resource which deserves external linkage -it speaks directly to the harassment of women in the gaming industry in general, and to her own in particular.

http://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow-daily/watch/exclusive--woman-who-sparked-gamergate-345327171549

kencf0618 (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious why this keeps getting removed. Is there something I'm missing? Woodroar (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Concerns about undue and recentism, purportedly. I'll WP:3 if necessary. kencf0618 (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Your revision (addition of the external link) seems to adhere to Wikipedia policy and has been accepted. However, just to be safe, I will leave your later revisions to be judged by another reviewer. Thank you.-Tony Tan98 · talk 16:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
No problem. I like to do this according to Hoyle. kencf0618 (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
It's a good interview, though short and hence not in depth, I would recommend viewing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC).

Biased

Hat per WP:NOTFORUM. Dreadstar ☥ 01:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article, along with the gamergate article is extremely biased towards sjws. Alphaslucas talk 05:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Your use of the term "SJW" is quite telling. If you have reliably-sourced information that should be added, please feel free to edit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Confirmation of relationship with reporter

Here is my reply to David Eppstein, regarding the topic of Zoe's Quinn's confirmed relationship with a reporter:

David Eppstein, that was pretty much what I was getting at with my suggestion of a change of wording. I think the BBC article was pretty clear in its reference to "the" relationship, but I'm not Bill Clinton and I'm not going to debate the meaning of the word "the" with you, and I'll concede that the point is ambiguous. She had a relationship with the reporter from Kotaku, which is actually a bit of information that is of value in trying to understand what happened and why. I think your point about "infidelity" is well-taken, and would suggest maybe the accusation itself be rephrased entirely to avoid that term, since whether the relationship (which can be confirmed to have occurred) was an act of "infidelity" or not is (I agree) completely irrelevant. But the fact that she had a relationship with a reporter does seem relevant, since it serves as the kernel of truth on which the other heaps of lies were based. So maybe instead of "published a blog post accusing her of infidelity" we could have something like "published a blog post that addressed her relationship with a reporter" or something along those lines. Personally, I would have benefited in my understanding of the issue if I had been able to find a reliable source one way or another as to whether she actually did have a relationship with that reporter, since otherwise it was hard to figure out what had been debunked and what hadn't. As it was, I finally came across the statement from the editor of Kotaku (which I don't suggest as a reliable source for that matter) but that took a lot of digging. It seems beneficial to the article to confirm that yes, there was a relationship. I also think it's equally (probably more) important to point out that the rest of the accusations were untrue -- but that's already there. I also don't think confirmation of the relationship has to be done in any particularly negative way. But otherwise it seems like intentionally trying to cover something up that's merely embarrassing, while obscuring the larger point of how all this played out. --Khgtcv (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that my earlier comments (as well as a few responses by other parties) were removed because I had interpreted the BBC article as confirming not just Zoe's relationship with a reporter (which it absolutely, unambiguously does) but also the claim made by her ex that the relationship constituted infidelity. I am trying to be very clear here that I'd rather avoid the "infidelity" label entirely (that was pretty much my original point as well) but do see value in the article confirming that there was a relationship. I think I explain that point more clearly in the above comment (originally a response to David Eppstein's comment, also deleted) and leave it to stand on its own. --Khgtcv (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh and since the link to the BBC article I mentioned was also deleted, here it is again: [14] --Khgtcv (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"The rest of the accusations" - if this means that Greyson reviewed her game (he didn't he simply mentioned it), then we certainly can and I think do make that clear. The rest of the accusations by her ex-boyfriend we do not, I think, mention, nor should we as things stand, in any case not in any detail. The salient point is that the personal accusations of her sexual relationships within the gaming industry gave rise to accusations that favours were being obtained through unethical means. I agree that the question of infidelity does not arise, neither we nor any RS are likely to be privy to enough information to comment on this. If, however, RS reported that "accusations of infidelity" were significant, then that might be considered relevant. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC).
Yes, I mainly had in mind the (completely unfounded, and blatantly obviously so given the lack of any actual review) accusations that her relationship was in exchange for a positive review, or anything that came after (other similar accusations regarding other reporters or figures in the gaming industry, none of which are even to confirmed to have happened at all, let alone for nefarious reasons.) But I don't see the personal accusation of her having had a relationship with a reporter as being what led to subsequent accusations (which in turn are what brought her to notability) but rather the actual relationship itself. Wikipedia has much higher standards of evidence than most regular people, so it takes a BBC article affirming the existence of the relationship to even come close to justifying its inclusion in an article -- but for most people the standard is less onerous, and was met long ago, at the very least by the statement from Kotaku on the matter (which is what confirmed it for me.) I don't think the issue would have progressed as far as it did, had there not been an actual relationship at its core. So that seems relevant. At the very least, it was something I came to this article specifically in search of, when I first heard of Zoe Quinn and the surrounding controversy... and I'm sure I'm not the only one who came here looking for clarity on what did and did not actually happen, and what was just posturing on either side. The more I think about it, the more the "infidelity" part just seems completely irrelevant, even in terms of the accusations. It was the accusation of there being a relationship, later backed up with more concrete evidence, that led to accusations of that relationship being improper (in the context of journalistic ethics) and ultimately to those later accusations being debunked. Infidelity doesn't really factor into it, one way or another. --Khgtcv (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, looking just now there isn't any mention of the accusations regarding her (non-existent) positive review being false. Didn't there used to be? Or am I imagining that? Maybe some of the material was moved over to the GameGate article? Anyway, maybe that section on this article should actually just be trimmed down even further, and mention of her ex's accusations removed entirely from this article. Maybe I'll take up this topic over there at some point, but not today as this is a bit stressful, like tip-toeing through a minefield. --Khgtcv (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I should add, having just discovered it... The article by Greyson was called "Admission Quest", had a large screenshot from Depression Quest, and only named 3 of the 50 games being green lit by Steam, so it's not quite the "only mention" that I thought. Also I was unaware that Greyson wrote the article I have seen most widely quoted about the television reality show. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC).

Video game vs. text based computer game

Depression quest is a text based computer game. The article gives the impression that it is a video game, it would be good if this could be carefully addressed.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC).

That is not, I believe, the sense in which "video game" is normally used. (For example, Video_game_genres#Text_adventures ...) Rather, the term originated to distinguish games played in front of a visual display from boardgames. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn image

Is this really the best image we could get of her? Her holding a bottle that appears to contain alcohol in it isn't exactly showing her in a good light during this entire incident. I feel like a replacement should be considered. GamerPro64 20:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

A better picture would be great, but I imagine non-copyright images are hard to come by. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, it's not a good picture. It's the only image of her in Commons, though, at least that I could find. The photo was originally uploaded from flickr, but looking for a replacement there, I found nothing with a usable license (only one in flickr at all, but it's Wireimage/Getty, so very little chance of getting it released). There may be a better one in there, but I'm not having any luck with the tagging/search on that site. Grayfell (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The image could be cropped, though. The bearded dude has no relevance to the topic whatsoever. Diego (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think showing someone at a social engagement paints them in a bad light; agree with Diego that it could/should be cropped. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Done. DS (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Where did the image come from?

Having done a quick reverse image google search, this image is not new to the main stream. So who took the picture? Zoe Quinn? Someone else? I've seen this sort of thing before, a high quality image comes up of a highly requested person and then that image turns out to be a copyright violation. Looking at the commons page, it was uploaded by 'HugsBoson'. Do we've any confirmation that the user took the picture/personally knew who took the picture and got them to release it under a free license? Tutelary (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted to the previous image, and will goto commons to tag those uploads as copyvios. Tarc (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I honestly had it pegged as a self-upload, but I guess there's no guarantee for that. I just sent her a contact form e-mail through her blog asking if she'd be interested in releasing a high-quality pic, though.
Peter Isotalo 11:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Before the new images were uploaded, I directed Zoe to Wikimedia Commons after seeing her comment on the current photo.[15] I followed up with a private message stating that she needs to contact OTRS to confirm the permissions, I've had no response, but maybe check OTRS. - hahnchen 14:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
User:CPGSaw, you will have to contact Commons:OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) to confirm that you hold the rights to the new images, or they'll probably be deleted. - hahnchen 20:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Turns out that Zoe did upload some images to Commons, but they were deleted.[16] - hahnchen 20:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Hahnchen, I've been given unofficial permission that I hold the rights to the images and that they're CC BY SA 3.0, but I'm in the process of clearing it in writing so it'll be above board. Should be done by the end of the day. CPGSaw (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
User:CPGSaw, Zoe's confirmed on Twitter.[17] Might be worth emailing permissions anyway. - hahnchen 20:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Hahnchen, just did. I was in the process of emailing her for that exact statement but she posted it anyways. I've updated the talk pages and emailed OTRS so everyone should be on the same page. CPGSaw (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

We should ask her for a proper portrait rather than these artistic selfies.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I dunno, I think it looks fine. She's not the President or the Pope, no need for pantsuits and proper shoulders-forward, slight smile stares. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Her not holding a high status job is irrelevant, everyone is held to the same standards here. It should be a fairly neutral photo, the old cropped image was perfectly fine- we don't choose images based on the subject's opinions as we're supposed to be NPOV. Her sitting weird in a car making a funny face isn't neutral. --TheTruthiness (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
NPOV doesn't mean we ignore the subject's opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
For the record, my "it looks fine" comment was about the image that you are also talking about, the cropped one. Tarc (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:BLP is Wikipedia's strongest policy, the author requested it and licensed a free photo. That's something not many do. Tutelary (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm ... not convinced that the subject's expressed views on which image we should use are always intended in the most serious manner [18]. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME

In its entirety:

Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced.

Which part of this policy calls for deleting the name of the living person who set this kerfuffle in motion?

His name hasn't been intentionally concealed. His name appears in The Globe and Mail. He's certainly "directly involved in the article's topic" and his name's absence deprives the article of necessary context. I'm aware of norms that argue for the omission of names of alleged victims of sexual assault, and they might well be coextensive with WP:HARM. But the names of alleged perpetrators of such harassment? Confirmed in The Globe and Mail? Really? David in DC (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

He intentionally concealed his name when he posted. Removing the name doesn't change the context. His name only appears as brief mentions in blogs and news media. SPACKlick (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
He's certainly "directly involved in the article's topic" and his name's absence deprives the article of necessary context. Of what context? All the relevant context is that he was Zoe Quinn's boyfriend. Also, we concealed Zoe Quinn's real name, because it appeared in few to no RS so it wasn't encylopedic to state, and given that she used a fake name anywho, we should respect that. We should also err on the side of caution on including real people's names. I have not seen his name plastered in article titles, only revealing his connection as her 'ex boyfriend' and that's all the relevant context that is needed. The specific bit you're looking for in BLPNAME is Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it... We should keep it omitted due to privacy concerns for the individual at hand. Tutelary (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, but it seems consensus is in the other direction. So be it.
You may have noticed, I redacted it above on the talk page, too.
Now, what on earth is wrong with this direct quotation, attributed to the Guardian "According to The Guardian, Quinn has "had to pack up and move in with friends, after [this] online campaign of hatred against her." It's a reliable source and it's not an opinion piece. David in DC (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
IT's of no encyclopaedic value. WP:BLPGOSSIP states Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. It may be worthwhile in an article called Responses to TheZoePost but it's not revelant to a disinterested article about Zoe Quinn. SPACKlick (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm beginning to understand why newbies are feeling bitten here. I'm feeling bitten and I'm no newby. There's a pervasive sense ownership in the hair-trigger edits going on around here and, believe it or not, I'm usually a BLP warrior on the exclusionary side of the debate. That a major newspaper has reported that the subject of a BLP has felt the need to move because of harassment is not gossip. It's a significant, factual development that would figure in any biography, wiki or published on old style paper. David in DC (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
SPACKlick, I agree with you on the name, it should be omitted, but I'm not seeing the proof that omitting the mention that she was driven from her home in a section entitled 'harassment' would be beneficial. Tutelary (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if we've been a little zealous David in DC. WRT to the name, it simply violates BLP. WRT to the Guardian quote, I'm not convinced on the house move, but after you Boldly added it, I reverted it and now we discuss it. This is how editing is meant to work. I've queried whether it's relevant to a disinterested article on the subject. What does it add for the reader? SPACKlick (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The real issue here is that the whole "harassment" section is probably going to need to become a "controversy" section. It really depends on how long this section is going to be; GamerGate has risen to the point of notability and actually has more articles than Zoe Quinn harassment does at this point (at least on Google News, though lord knows that's a rough estimate at best, as a lot of stuff involved in this aren't really great sources; there are lots of RSs, but a lot of sources are biased or have conflicts of interest, which is making sourcing things a lot more dicey). Also, a lot of the heat she has drawn is less harassment and more criticism, which complicates matters further, and even worse are the accusations that she is playing the victim (and there are numerous accusations of exactly this, re: the harassment and claims of misogyny). Her leaving her home is potentially noteworthy, but it depends on how much we end up including in the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The boyfriend's name seems important to try to understand this story. It does appear in several news sources, for example [19][20] (I hope that merely citing reliable sources on a discussion page isn't enough to get me revdelled, but nowadays, who knows?). The most important reason to include it is to facilitate further research by readers and editors. I should explain by that, what I mean is, there are two kinds of media: one, like The Associated Press, whose purpose in life is to waste your time giving you bland generalizations loaded down with their particular spin that you can't follow up on to understand, and the other, like the sources I cite here, which make a real effort to give you the actual lay of the land. Some elites on Wikipedia recently seem to have sworn allegiance to the former media approach, but many of us readers do not agree. And having the name to search with is one of the quickest ways there is to pick out the real articles from the time-wasters to try to figure out what (if anything) is at the bottom of all this. It may seem cruel to associate the boyfriend's name with all this, but it's just as "cruel" to associate Quinn; bottom line though is that when something becomes big news there's no holding it back and it's not our job to try. And any protection as a "family member" would be misplaced; he is an independent participant in the story.
Where we can be extra sensitive by BLP is to actually read that primary source of his cited in the Globe and Mail (I'm not even going to dare to try right now, but it does belong as a source in the article). In it, he has an update where he asks people not to harass Quinn, and makes other conciliatory statements, and mentioning these surely would not be a bad thing for either of the original parties to this pea-under-the-mattresses. I think that both parties, but especially Quinn, being the subject of the article, deserve to be heard in their own words - I always believe in letting the subject have his/her say. One of her primary references is [21].
I'll add that I still have no idea how obscure blog posts ever got turned into a cause for harassment or news coverage; the incomprehensibility of it is precisely why I want Wikipedia to cover it in detail. We don't understand how cyberbullying or popularity on the Web really works, I think, and this is data. We need freedom to navigate -- beginning with the most basic brass tacks like naming the parties -- in order to hope to do any service to that here. Wnt (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I disengaged for a while. Life is too short. I'm gratified to see that, in my absence, the consensus has shifted and that the edit I advocated in this thread has been reinserted. Thank you. David in DC (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I've also been disengaged and find the re-insert of the name a problem still. WNT you say The boyfriend's name seems important to try to understand this story. I have one question to counter that. If instead of the actual name it said "David Spindler" what difference would that make to the reader?
The ex boyfriend is not a public figure. There is no mention of him on the internet at all which isn't linked to the gamergate controversy, he's not a public figure so naming him rather than merely referring to him as "the ex boyfriend" and similar is a direct violation of the sections of WP:BLP quoted above.
Yes, he is a (limited) public figure at this point and no, it's not a violation of BLP. He has been named and his actions have been widely discussed in mainstream reliable sources as a Google News search reveals — there are literally hundreds of reliably-sourced news articles discussing Gjoni's role in launching this whole debacle. He has voluntarily given at least two media interviews on the subject. Given the significance of the allegations and insinuations in Quinn's life, it would be irresponsible for us to republish Gjoni's allegations in an essentially-anonymous fashion. It's a simple matter of source accountability. Eron Gjoni voluntarily and widely publicly posted a name-and-shame drama blog about his ex-lover — he can hardly claim any expectation of privacy when the consequences of his actions become international news.
I agree that we should not delve extensively into his life, but a brief mention of the name of the person who touched off the firestorm which engulfed Zoe Quinn's life is entirely encyclopedic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Many apologies, i've discovered from your link the reason I haven't been finding sources is my notes have his surname spelt wrong. There's much more coverage out there than I had found. In the words of our law courts, objection withdrawn. That being said, the blog was published anonymously so there was an expectation of some level of privacy. It is the wide and particularly voluntary publication of his name that justifies this inclusion.SPACKlick (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I fully agree that if they had not become a key part of a several-months-running international news story, neither his name nor his allegations would be encyclopedic. Unfortunately for all involved, we're now kinda stuck. Thanks for taking a second look. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate

We now have a pretty extensive article on Gamergate. I've added a "main" template and trimmed back the Gamergate section. It could probably benefit from even heavier trimming. --TS 03:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm not going to be able to do much about this pretty soon, but this is literally the most noteworthy thing that has happened involving Zoe Quinn and two paragraphs seems like the minimum amount necessary. Not to mention that if you are going to mention GamerGate and harassment then you should definitely give people some inkling in this article what it is about. The current highly sanitized version of this is bad enough, but making it to where it is basically saying "Some naughty people were really mean to Zoe. You should feel really sorry for her. It is so hard to be a woman," is just making a mockery of Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 08:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The extensive Gamergate controversy article goes into detail about the series of false and sometimes maliciously false accusations that formed the basis for the character assassination and other attacks against Quinn and others. The detail you've added is redundant and, for a biography, rather too much. To be sure, it's a major event, but Quinn was just part of it and not an instigator at that. The malicious attacks are on Gamergate, not those targeted. That's why I've now removed that large addition. --TS 16:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
It's a summary of Gamergate controversy, of course it's redundant. You've trimmed away so much detail, however, that it barely says anything and certainly doesn't provide an accurate summary. If you're worried about repeating attacks against Quinn here (perfectly reasonable), it shouldn't be too difficult to remove that information without gutting the rest of the paragraph. Such as by replacing the second sentence of the longer version with something like: Shortly after the game was released in August 2014, Eron Gjoni, Quinn's ex-boyfriend, published a blog post attacking Quinn. lifebaka++ 17:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
To reiterate, my main concern here is that the sheer volume of detail is inappropriate for such a slight biography. There's a point at which a biography becomes a kind of coat rack, and this sheer volume of words seems to be in effect an attempt to fork part of the Gamergate controversy article here. --TS 18:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a bit of feedback, I think this line is pretty biased and unsubstantiated: "Gamergate was the culmination of these events and resulted in widespread recognition of misogyny in gaming." There was no real mainstream adoption of misogyny in gaming, but rather the argument was put forward. There is plenty of back and forth on the issue on the Gamergate article itself so taking sides in this article seems pretty irresponsible.169.231.11.156 (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It's what the sources say. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The main picture of Ms. Quinn

I think the main picture for this article is ridiculous, and thus quite unencyclopedic (certainly Wikipedia is only "real encyclopedia" that would regard such a picture to be an appropriate representation of a biographical article's subject). I expressed this thought earlier today, and my comments were reverted, and I was warned on my personal Talk page that I might face "sanctions," for, um, saying stuff some people don't like, I guess. Well, I stand by my remarks. The photo is a disgrace, and it makes Wikipedia look stupid, and unprofessional. The photo is something I would expect to see in People, rather than an encyclopedia. That is my sincere (and quite reasonable) opinion, irrespective of my feelings about Ms. Quinn, "GamerGate," Feminism, and the like. Surely I will not be reverted (or sanctioned!) for saying so? I have an idea - instead of trying to intimidate me, why don't we consider what I've actually said, and perhaps use a serious photograph, one that doesn't look like it was selected by Ms. Quinn's 9-year-old niece, and more to the point, one that doesn't make Wikipedia look like an inane laughingstock? KevinOKeeffe (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The talk-page warning is a standard one that everybody gets, but let's just say this is a touchy subject, and your undiplomatic wording isn't helping. But, since we're discussing this, (1) where do you intend to find an appropriately-licensed picture that you think is an improvement (there are four images of the subject on commons but they're not very different thematically from each other), and (2) why should your opinion about the proper decorum with which a professional gaming woman should be presented carry more weight than the subject's own opinion (as expressed via her choice of these photos to make available) about how she wants to present herself? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps KevinOKeeffe is under the completely mistaken impression that a Wikipedia editor can go to Google Images, enter a search term like Zoe Quinn, and select the most aesthetic image for our article. This is false. We can only use properly freely licensed images here. 99.9% of internet images do not comply. So, KevinOKeeffe, instead of shooting your mouth off in such an aggressive fashion, why don't you propose a specific properly licensed alternative image for the article? Either that, or remain silent. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

What, precisely, is the objection to this image? Why is it ridiculous or disgraceful? I observe that not every biography requires a picture. For example, Ellen Pao, who leads Reddit, has none. What would you consider a more suitable image? MarkBernstein (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I recommend contacting Quinn and asking her to provide an image. There are ways to "donate" images EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That's how we got two of images we have now isn't it? — Strongjam (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Which is why I ask, again, if this is the image Quinn already chose for herself, what right do we have to tell her that her self-image is wrong and she should change it? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
We are in complete agreement. I see no problem with this image, especially if the subject prefers it. — Strongjam (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

FYCs

Having read far more than I would like about the whole imbroglio it seems surprising that this article does not cover the dispute with and allegations by the FYCs.All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC).

Games

It would be good to include some of the video games Quinn has developed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC).

It think that is should also be clarified that Zoe Quinn is only credited with QA roles for Fez and They Bleed Pixels, because "worked on" can be a misleading term for a game tester role. links to pages that credit Zoe Quinn wtih "QA" roles: http://steamcommunity.com/app/224760/discussions/0/864978835496834110/ http://www.giantbomb.com/they-bleed-pixels/3030-35887/credits/.

Gamergate Harassment sub-section under Career

Why is the Gamergate harassment section listed under "Career"? I previously moved it to be under "Personal life" since it seemed more appropriate, but it looks like I was reverted. Is there a good reason it should be under career? — Strongjam (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I think because it's related to her connections with the gaming industry is why it would be right to include it there. Ranze (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Self-tweeting about background

(Redacted)

That this bilge has not been removed from the talk page at first glance is an indictment of Wikipedia and a shame to the project, It has not relevance to anything whatsoever, save for the avowed goals of Gamergate to punish and to make an example of women who dare to work in computing. Shame. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Please can I remind everyone editing this article to read our policies on biographies of living people and especially Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. One obvious corollary of that is that if you can't even find a tabloid source for a titillating claim about someone's life then it obviously doesn't belong in Wikipedia. ϢereSpielChequers 15:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Restraining order

Are we allowed to discuss the restraining order she filed against Erin Gjoni on this article? (Redacted) If this is covered in any larger sources then it might become noteworthy. Ranze (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I have redacted several self-published negative claims from the above post, which constitute a clear, blatant and indisputable violation of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, guess I need to be updated on how BLP works, could someone help point to a section to look at there? I'd just like to know, are we allowed to link the the document (restraining order) minus the commentary? I don't know what policies are regarding legal documents like this. Ranze (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ranze, you might want to read Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy. ϢereSpielChequers 10:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Testimony Before Congress?

Is Ms. Quinn's appearance before the United States Congress (on 4/15/15) notable enough to include? It has popped up in RS but not in any sort of in-depth fashion. I guess, absent some further action or reason for notability, it's not really worthy of specific inclusion. What do other editors think? Dumuzid (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd say testifying before Congress is a relatively significant achievement, most people don't get to do that. If you've got a decent source, feel free to add it to the article. Robofish (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E

I'm closing this discussion, as it is going around in circles and was never focused on improving our article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is Quinn notable outside the so call GamerGate incident, and if not, isn't this WP:BLP1E. Strikes me as a little odd that we're given someone notability purely on the basis that they were the victim of harassment. NickCT (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@NickCT: Was brought up in the deletion discussion. She's also received pre-GG coverage for her body modification (RFID chip in hand,) and Depression Quest. WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply. — Strongjam (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
@Strongjam: - It was mentioned, not really explored. The pre-GG coverage isn't really "high quality" RS, is it? NickCT (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
She's not notable solely for being harassed by Gamergate proponents (she also develops video games, like Depression Quest), so I don't believe that particular policy applies, even if the majority of coverage of her is related to Gamergate. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
When was this page created? NickCT (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Looking through the Zoe Quinn revision history, it looks like this article was created on the 30th of May, 2014- almost a year ago. Why? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
This deletion discussion may be helpful to you, NickCT. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Saw the deletion discussion. Interesting, it was proposed for lack of notability. Not BLP1E.
When did GamerGate actually occur? NickCT (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I believe the deletion discussion also covers the one event thing. Eron Gjoni's blogpost about Zoe Quinn, which has been regarded as a catalyst for the gamergate harassment, was posted on August 2014. I can't get the exact date of the Adam Baldwin tweet which first used the hashtag, but it was after this blogpost. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
So was the article created as a result of the harrassment? NickCT (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
No. Gamergate started after the article was created. Although Quinn was being harassed over Depression Quest at the time. — Strongjam (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
So you're saying she also notable for being the subject harrassment which was seperate and distinct from the GamerGate incident? NickCT (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Per the deletion discussion I linked you to, she is also notable for having a computer chip in her hand, participating in a reality tv show, and working on the development of Framed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
That wasn't the question. NickCT (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
My apologies for going above and beyond. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, she was also the subject of harassment pre-GG, although probably not distinct. Anyway, if you feel she doesn't meet WP:GNG, nominate for deletion, although I don't see it going anywhere. Also, post-GG, she founded Crash Override. — Strongjam (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Again, I think she probably does pass WP:GNG. But there are plenty of folks who pass WP:GNG but fail WP:BLP1E. It's not clear to me that Quinn would be "otherwise notable" (i.e. she'd have an article if there had been no GG).
Regardless, I'm not going to put this to AfD unless others feel there is a BLP1E concern. NickCT (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You're arguing for a different threshold than the one that is actually in WP:BLP1E. It's not that one event makes the difference of qualifying for an article or not, because one can argue that stepping backwards for anyone; one can always see it as one event that pushes someone across the threshold. In order for BLP1E to apply, the subject has to meet the condition that "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." As people have pointed to reliable sources that cover the subject outside of that context, and in fact that predate that context, then BLP1E doesn't apply here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@NatGertler: - That's one of the thresholds in WP:BLP1E. WP:BLP1E also requires that without the "one event" in question, someone would still be likely to recieve an article. See the line that reads "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual......". It seems like likely Quinn would be a "low-profile individual" if GG hadn't occurred. NickCT (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is itself bordering on a BLP violation. Zoe Quinn wrote a notable game which received significant press coverage and which, having its own Wikipedia page, is notable. After writing this game, she was the victim of intense misogynistic harassment which was widely reported in the international press. This page itself is notable: its use in attempts to threaten and shame the subject in order to drive her from the game industry is discussed in Boston Magazine this month, with significant secondary coverage in reliable sources elsewhere. Quinn has spoken widely about the harassment, including widely-reported meetings with and testimonies before Congress. If the purpose of this discussion is to achieve a SNOW KEEP, AfD is thataway --->. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
That says nothing about whether a person qualifies for a Wikipedia page otherwise. If you click the link in that line, you'll find that in our definition of low-profile individual, "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." She has, as seen by coverage of other items, and the fact that they are not required to be notable means that they are not required to qualify otherwise for an article. (I should also note that BLP1E requires that each of these conditions be met, not any.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@NatGertler: - I'm having a little trouble following your logic. I'm not arguing that Quinn is low-profile because she is actively seeking out media attention. I'm suggesting she is low-profile, b/c without this one event (i.e. GG), she would likely not be notable.
@MarkBernstein: - re "bordering on a BLP violation" That seems a little hyperbolic. re "Zoe Quinn wrote a notable game" - We're not talking about the game. We're talking about Quinn. There are any number of examples of notable books/movies/games whose creators aren't themselves notable. re "This page itself is notable" - Bolding like that makes your argument so much more convincing.
Regardless, as I said, I'm not planning on taking this to AfD unilaterally. I was mostly to curious to see if there was a good counter argument to BLP1E. NickCT (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. This is, apparently, an academic exercise since NickCT is not planning to go to AfD. BLP1E requires that ALL of three conditions be met.

1: Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

In this case, we have coverage of the subject’s creative work (WP:AUTHOR) and coverage of her harassment and its sequels -- the Congressional testimony, the lawsuit(s), the media appearances.

2: That person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.

Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. The subject has granted numerous high-profile interviews, been the subject of a New Yorker profile and of a Boston Magazine feature, appeared without a subpoena before Congress, and has published notable (and controversial) games. The subject has written extensively on the consequences of her harassment. This clause echoes the "public figure" language of defamation law, and in that sense the subject is clearly a public figure.

3: The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.

The subject was the original target of Gamergate, and their attacks on her are clearly notable.

Summary: BLP1E would be applicable if all three conditions were met. It is quite likely that none of the conditions are in fact satisfied. Can we go home now? MarkBernstein (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: - re "we have coverage of the subject’s creative work (WP:AUTHOR) and coverage of her harassment and its sequels" - The only "high quality" coverage (i.e. from major mainstream sources) relates to the harassment, not the creative work. The "sequels" and the "harassment" itself strike me as essentially the same event. For crimes, we usually treat the crime itself and the trial as a single event. You don't get to count all the followup events linked to the first event as discrete.
re "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile" - I think you're misreading that. It's saying that a person may be "high-profile" even if they are seeking out media attention. It's not saying a person is high-profile because they are seeking out media attention.
re "The event is not significant" - I wouldn't dispute that GG was "notable", but I'm not sure it was really "significant". I mean, it was hardly the Anita Hill scandal or anything. NickCT (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. It is possible, though not easy, to make a case against any one of the three requirements. At AfD, you'd need to make a convincing case on all three. As said before, AfD is thataway if you really want to add a SNOW KEEP to your accomplishments. Otherwise, I'm not sure I see the point of this. Can we go home now? MarkBernstein (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: - I don't think it would be snow, but I'm guessing it would be a no consensus at best. The problem is that there are too many folks (like you) who have taken a personal interest in this subject (likely out of some misguided and counterproductive sense of chivalry) and would defend it at AfD. Having been around the AfD circuit a couple times, I've seen this kind of thing on BLP's, particularly with subjects who may be wrapped up in relatively recent events (i.e. WP:RECENTISM). If we jumped forward 100 years, I seriously doubt Quinn is going to memorable (unless of course she achieves some further notability).
Regardless, I think you might actually want to consider the benefits of submitting to AfD yourself. Getting "keep" decision would insulate the article from further nominations by people such as myself who thought it might be "possible" to make the case for BLP1E. NickCT (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm... That collapse was a little pointed. Unfortunate really, as I thought the conversation was actually going somewhere. Unfortunate too as it seems to be further demonstration of some kind of weird cabal trying to protect this page. Listen guys, I completely understand the concern here and respect that you might feel you're trying to do the noble thing here. But, I really don't think we're helping anyone by not carefully and dispassionately applying policy. NickCT (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Pointed (but still I think appropriate) would be pointing out that this is all in the FAQ for this talk page (#3) and just removing the discussion rather than hatting it. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: - I'd seen the FAQ. I'm not proposing that we delete the page. I'm questioning whether there is obvious rationale against BLP1E.
I'm a little curious why the FAQ says that there have been previous "discussions" (plural) at AfD. I see one AfD discussion. Am I missing something or is the FAQ wrong? NickCT (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
If you're not proposing that we delete the page, what is the point of this whole talk page section? Talk pages are supposed to be about improvements to the encyclopedia, not general ranting about how you don't think the subject is important. What improvements are you bringing to the table? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@NickCT: Coverage in high quality RS, that aren't about GG:
  • Participation in an ill-fated reality-show. [1]
  • Developer of Depression Quest. [2]
  • Implanting an RFID chip in her hand. [3]

Also we have coverage that mentions GG, but are about other notable activities:

Do you still have concerns about WP:BLP1E? — Strongjam (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-04/01/game-jam-reality-show
  2. ^ http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2013/07/07/depressed-anxious-getting-older-there-app-for-all-that/oAfLUdvS6pBL0hIs20mZFI/story.html
  3. ^ http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/cyborgs-among-us-human-biohackers-embed-chips-their-bodies-n150756
  4. ^ http://www.wired.com/2015/01/gamergate-anti-harassment-network/
  5. ^ http://variety.com/2015/film/reviews/sxsw-film-review-gtfo-get-the-f-out-1201458625/
@Strongjam: - I only see the NBC and Globe as being "high quality" RS, and it's probably only the Globe that is giving Quinn direct and deep coverage (rather than passing mention). Even in the Globe though, the primary subject is mental health and video games, not Quinn. Variety is a pretty good source, but the mention there is passing and it seems to be linked to GG.
Mentions in RS's are different than actual meaningful coverage.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not dismissing all these sources. But take away GG and I think you're left what I'd call "borderline" notability at best. NickCT (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The guidelines at WP:BLP1E outline a conjunctive test for when an BLP article should be avoided as a 'single event.' Thus, all three conditions must be met under the guidelines if there is a BLP1E issue. Even if we grant that the first two branches of the test are met, the third requires that the event is "not significant," or that the person's role is either "not substantial" or "not well documented." It seems to me that the Gamergate Controversy page shows that consensus is there's some significance, and arguing that Quinn's part is not substantial or not well documented in the RS belies credulity. Therefore, even if we argue that Quinn is non-notable outside of Gamergate, given the WP:BLP1E guidelines, I think it's clear the article should stay. Dumuzid (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: - A reasonable point. I actually really dislike that criteria in BLP1E because it forces you to question what a "significant" event is. I mean how significant is Gamer Gate? Certainly not as significant as the Death of Freddie Gray. Freddie Gray who doesn't have an article by the way. (and before you say it, I know that's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). NickCT (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@NickCT: -- I agree that "significance" is a fuzzy metric, but I don't think it's a particularly close call in this case. There has been lots of coverage in high quality RS regarding both Gamergate and Ms. Quinn's role therein. If it (and by extension she) is deserving of multiple articles in the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc., then it makes sense that those articles be represented on WP. Or so I believe. Dumuzid (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: - re "multiple articles in the New York Times, the Washington Post" - I don't know. I feel like I could point to a number of events which received multiple articles in the New York Times and Washington Post where BLP1E would still have come into play (e.g. Freddie Gray).
In my mind, "significant" means a story that a majority of people who keep up with news would likely be aware of. Gamergate isn't that. The story seems to find primary appeal among the geeky "cyber" community (i.e. the types of people who edit wikipedia). NickCT (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
@NickCT: -- Not to sound overly pedantic, but this is where WP:VNT becomes important, even with regard to baseline "significance." You and I could, in theory, go round and round as to whether gamergate is significant, but it's an objective fact that it's been the subject of many articles, news stories, etc. I again think this article is a clear keep, and I think Freddie Gray is easily distinguishable. First of all, there's quite an in-depth article at Death of Freddie Gray, but I also think there's a bit of BLP1E issue in that case simply because the RS don't go in to a lot of detail on his life (i.e., his life is not well documented per WP:BLP1E). To my mind, this article is not even close to subject to deletion as BLP1E, but I am often wrong about things. Dumuzid (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: - WP:BLP1E relates to whether people can have a separate article (i.e. a BLP). It does not discuss coverage in the body of an article. Notability rules usually don't apply to content in the body of articles. Only to the article itself. If Quinn was discussed at length, within the Gamergate article, we wouldn't be having this discussion. NickCT (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
@NickCT: -- I obviously agree. Sorry I am unclear. Freddie Gray meets the three-part test of WP:BLP1E, namely, he is famous for one event, is (sadly) likely to remain low profile, and crucially, his life and even his role in his untimely death are not well documented. Ms. Quinn's role in gamergate is both substantial and well documented. You can argue the event is not significant, but as I've said, I think doing so is very much in contravention of the RS. I hope that makes my position more clear. Dumuzid (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: - Maybe I'm being a little slow here, but that's not clear. Are you saying that Freddie Gray's role in the Death of Freddie Gray wasn't substantial? That strikes me as a pretty remarkable claim.
Quinn would likely remain low profile without GG, and there is really very little coverage of Quinn's life in RS outside of the context of GG. NickCT (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
@NickCT: -- No. I am saying Freddie Gray's life is not well documented in the RS outside of its unfortunate end. Therefore it meets the third prong of the WP:BLP1E test, and, in my opinion, all three prongs. Let's apply that test to the current article. Quinn might well not be famous without gamergate. Therefore she meets prong one of the test. Quinn might well remain low profile without the gamergate issue. She therefore meets prong two of the test. In order to meet prong three, it must be shown that either (1) the event is not significant, or (2) either (a) Quinn's role was not substantial or (b) not well documented. This is where the BLP1E test no longer applies to Quinn, and why I think given those guidelines, the article should remain. Unless you can show that the event is not significant, or the person's role is not substantial or not well documented, it doesn't matter how low-profile the person is, or how much coverage is accorded them outside of their single event. Again, it seems objectively true that Quinn's role is substantial, and that she is well documented in the RS. So you're left with significance, which I know you dispute, but your argument that the coverage in the RS is essentially irrelevant is unconvincing to me. Dumuzid (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: - Ok. I understand you think Quinn meets the WP:BLP1E criteria 3 exception because you feel GG was significant. Again, I think this is probably a weakness in the WP:BLP1E because you end up debating what "significant" means. I think the onus is on you to explain why the event is significant. Perhaps this is really a discussion to have on the policy talk page itself.
And again, I don't understand why you'd make a distinction between Gray and Quinn on the WP:BLP1E criteria 3 exception. The Death of Freddie Gray was "significant", right? Gray's role in it was "substantial", right? NickCT (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
@NickCT: -- I think the determination of significance is easy; you leave it to the RS. I believe my onus is met with regard to significance by pointing out the sheer amount of coverage gamergate has received in various reliable sources of high quality. And Mr. Gray's death was both significant and his role substantial. But let's look at that third prong. It is met: IF [the event is not substantial] OR [the person's role is not substantial] OR [the person's role is not well documented]. Thus even though, as you say, Mr. Gray's death was significant, and his role substantial (as can hardly be denied), the fact that Mr. Gray's life is not well documented in the sources is enough, for me, to meet the third prong. Dumuzid (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: - I think it's the person's role in the event, right? So how is Gray's role in the Death of Freddie Gray not as well documented as Quinn's role in GG? NickCT (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@NickCT: -- Little to nothing is reported about Gray's life even on the day of his death. There are no interviews, it is unclear why he ran from police, it's not even certain what he was doing when he was arrested. If we had even a solid timeline of his actions and movements, things might be different. But there's simply not enough in the RS to create a biography page (obviously not a BLP in this case). Contrast that with the current article, and I think you'll see my argument. With all due respect, it sounds more like you're arguing for the creation of a Freddie Gray page than you are for deletion of this one. If that's the case, you should by all means make one. Dumuzid (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: - Hmmmmm... You seem to be changing the standard a bit. You keep reverting to their not being details about Gray's life. I agree. It's hard to find details about Gray's life. But that's not what the rule says. The rule says an individuals role in the event has to be "substantial" and "well documented". That's obviously true in Gray's case.
"it sounds more like you're arguing for the creation of a Freddie Gray" - I'm really just trying to figure out when you think BLP1E would and should apply. You seem to think it should apply to Gray. I'm trying to understand where you see the distinction between Gray and Quinn. NickCT (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@NickCT: -- I must not be expressing myself well, because I think (of course) I'm being fairly consistent. Ask yourself this: what would a biographical article say about Mr. Gray? Would it detail the day of his death? Would it tell us why he ran (allegedly) from the police? Would it tell us why he was (allegedly) carrying a knife? Whether he thought it was legal to do so? The answer is, of course, no, because all of these circumstances surrounding his death are undocumented (not due to anyone's fault). Even simpler, ask yourself how long such a biographical article on Mr. Gray would be, relying on the RS. It could say very little. That is not the case with regard to the topic at hand. Dumuzid (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: - Right. You've made the point that there wouldn't be much content for a Gray bio, and I agreed. Then I said, BLP1E doesn't say anything about whether or not there are a lot of details available for a bio. Are you still talking about BLP1E #3 criteria, or something else?
Plus, probably worth noting that there isn't much RS for details about Quinn's life. Note that we cited a tweet to get her birth date. That's not exactly an indication that her life is "well documented". NickCT (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@NickCT: Not only are there not many details available about Mr. Gray's life, there aren't many details available surrounding him and the circumstances of his death (please see the questions in my previous response). We have lots of detail with regard to Ms. Quinn and the gamergate incident from several sources. I think we'd better just agree to disagree. If you'd like to tag this article for deletion, or create a page for Mr. Gray, by all means do so. Dumuzid (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@NickCT: Good catch on the birth year cited to a tweet. We can cite that to an better source. I've gone ahead and fixed that. — Strongjam (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: - re "there aren't many details available surrounding him and the circumstances of his death" - There are dozens and dozens of articles covering the circumstances surrounding Gray's death. Significantly more than the number of RSs covering Quinn's circumstances in GG. Note that the word "documented" means there are documents concerning something. Not that there are details concerning something.
@Strongjam: - That's a little better! Thanks. NickCT (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
@NickCT: - Again, I think we simply disagree and will have to go on doing so. Have a nice day!

It’s interesting, isn't it, that we're having this discussion only about Zoe Quinn, and not about Gamergate supporters Milo_Yiannopoulos and Fredrick_Brennan. Why would that be? MarkBernstein (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


@MarkBernstein: - Well, I can only speak for myself, but I looked at Quinn's article because hers was the first name that appeared while skimming through the Gamergate article. So that's why I'm discussing Quinn. You think there's another reason?
Glancing at Milo and Fredrick, I agree those look questionable. Like Quinn, Brennan's article looks like it was made in response to Gamergate. At first glance Brennan's looks more questionable than Milo's. Frankly, I'd probably argue for delete for both Quinn and Brennan at AfD under BLP1E rationale. Probably neutral on Milo. NickCT (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

On categories

I believe both the video game developer and the programmer categories are appropriate. However if we are going to remove one, then it should be the least specific one, that is Category:Video game developers — Strongjam (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

AfD?

The AfD template on the page points to the wrong AfD discussion. This may be an accident, or may be intended to mislead those who might oppose the AfD. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually I believe the link is right, NickCT's text in the AFD says that he's bundling this article, Depression Quest, Brianna Wu, and Frederick Brennan articles in one AFD. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Aha. I didn't say that earlier. Even now, the other pages fall after the (long) argument, making it unclear whether they're cross-references or also nominated. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm not sure whether you're meant to place the additional templates before or after the argument. The AfD instructions suggest after, but I agree it makes it unclear. NickCT (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 9 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to diacritical version of title. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


Zoe Quinn → Zoë Quinn – Zoë Quinn is a Nom de Plume and includes the diacritic over the 'e' to express that it is pronounced in English (difference in sound is "Joe" vs. "Joey"). Her credits use the diacritic[22]. Finally, MoS says diacritics should be used in names Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names#Diacritics. I created the diacritic version as a redirect but it should be the primary location per RS and MoS. They just need to be swapped. DHeyward (talk) 06:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose Hey DHeyward, from my brief research, I would respectfully disagree. From Ms. Quinn's own sites, like her old twitter [23], her personal website [24], the page for her most famous game [25], to various Reliable Sources like the New Yorker [26], [27], the New York Times [28], the Washington Post [29], the Los Angeles Times [30], The Telegraph [31], The Guardian [32], and Boston Magazine [33], the name appears without the diacritic. While I quite agree that the name in general is often written with the umlaut, I think this specific article should defer to Ms. Quinn's own style, and from my brief research, it seems to be "Zoe" rather than "Zoë." Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    The diacritic only appears because she uses it which I presume is her preference. Her patreon page and account for another example [34]. The diacritic wasn't added because of translation, it's a genuine preference. It's lack of use may be font or editorial styles, but the only reason the diacritic has ever been printed is her preference. It's not a translation. --DHeyward (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks DHeyward, I never suggested there was a translation issue. The Patreon page is a good example and does support the diacritic -- but also the non-diacritic rendering (in the actual text thereof). I'm not sure Ms. Quinn is particularly dogmatic either way. As such, I still think the present situation is probably preferable. Dumuzid (talk) 08:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    Support in light of the disclosed preference. Dumuzid (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - we always have diacritics on foreign names, all across Wikipedia (with only 1 exception: the blonde Serbian tennis player who has one editor campaigning for her to be given an "English name" for those who've come late to this show), but with Anglos, it depends how they themselves write it. Without evidence from her own page, we can't do this. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    It's not foreign. I cited her own credit here. [35]. English papers often remove diacritic marks. I can't imagine she would be credited against her wishes when the diacritic was available. I think there is a "Common name" argument possible for keeping it as is, but I believe her preference is for the diacritic mark. The diacritic only appears because she uses it which I presume is her preference. Her patreon page and account for another example [36]. The diacritic wasn't added because of translation, it's a genuine preference. --DHeyward (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Then support per http://framed-game.com/presskit/sheet.php?p=framed, no, sorry, User:DHeyward it is Ana Ivanovic (sic) who is the foreign exception, that was my foreign comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: The New Yorker used no umlaut. The New Yorker is carefully edited and pays particular attention to diacritics, famously requiring them in contexts where common usage has abandoned them. I could be convinced by, for example, a directly-expressed preference, and I'm confident that could be obtained if we wish. MarkBernstein (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

MarkBernstein and now that we have a directly-expressed preference and The New Yorker missed it?
Support given subjects own preference for what I now know is a diaereses (thanks Strongjam!), seems the right course of action. Brustopher, while I don't doubt that this happened, is there anything other than a private message on Reddit we can refer to if this comes up in later discussions? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Would a screenshot of the messages do? Brustopher (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
It'd make me feel more certain in supporting the move, and might convince editors who might otherwise not. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Here's a link to a screenshot.[37] Brustopher (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per WP:COMMONNAME. She is commonly known without the umlaut. ONR (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It isn't even used it on the personal sites. We don't attach diacritics just because Wikipedia allows diacritics, they must be in use, commonly. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    That's false. It wasn't in Wikipedia until I created the redirect based on the use in her official credit for "Framed" [38] and her personal Patreon page [39]. COMMONNAME is a reasonable objection but it's not because Wikipedia allows diacritics. The reasoning I make is that her professional credits reflecting her nom de plume are her actual preference for its use. English locale twitter and mobile aren't particularly friendly to diacritics so I suspect she is fine with either and uses both. Wikipedia isn't limited, however, and can reflect whatever she prefers without having to search the twitter font tables. I'm sure someone has contact with her and can ascertain whether she would prefer one over the other but it's clear that it is Quinn that uses both and it isn't an invention of Wikipedia. A "New Yorker" editor-at-large might relish creating a bunch of diacritic redirects but I only created it because two sites she is personally involved use the diacritic. --DHeyward (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Twitter uses UTF8, so she could easily have added the dieresis, and The New Yorker's omitting it seems significant. Her Facebook page also omits the diacritic. Checking with the subject makes sense. MarkBernstein (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
For those unfamiliar The New Yorker really loves the diaeresis. On the topic of this move, baring a clear statement of preference from Quinn I find WP:COMMONNAME most compelling, but my oppose is so weak I don't care to vote on it. — Strongjam (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC) - Updated as the Quinn has communicated a preference. Strongjam (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Would you mind linking to the reddit URL that shows her response? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I've messaged Quinn on reddit and she says she prefers Zoë. Also she wants to know if the biography can mention her work as a writer. She's written for sites like Vice and Cracked, and been published in two books. Brustopher (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    Well then, my apologies, DHeyward. You were right. Dumuzid (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you. :) Even the blind squirrel .... I don't know if it's a good thing to scoop the New Yorker on diacritical usage. It would be entertaining to ask them for a correction. --DHeyward (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    Also, no reason to oppose her publication requests if they are notable. She can provide citations on this talk page (or through whatever means she used) and article inclusion of how/what/where would be up to consensus. I changed her role and status on 'Framed' to the official credited role and past tense since it's complete. There's probably quite a few things that were added as "in progress" news but are now historical. We could use her own page, her own articles or project reference to update them if they weren't covered. New stuff would obviously have to be notable. --DHeyward (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
    @DHeyward: These are the two books[40][41]. They both seem to have received some coverage. Brustopher (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Brustopher's relayed message. We should follow the subject's preference in this. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as the subject has indicated a preference for Zoë Quinn. — Strongjam (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Mild support with a healthy dose of WP:DGAF since one will always redirect to the other. But given the subject's stated preference, there's no harm in the move and making the current spelling the redirect. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the original title is more commonly used. The preference of the subject does not override Wikipedia policies. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    It's technically not different as the "e" and "ë" are the same letter in English so WP:AT policy is followed regardless of style. "Naive" and "naïve", for example, are the same English word with the same spelling. Once it's established they are the same, it comes down to style as to whether diacritical marks are used. In this case, the person prefers the version with the diacritical mark for their proper name. It takes nothing away from the title to use it and it isn't different from the version without the mark. It's an accepted, if outdated, use in English. Thus, deferring to preference does the least harm and confers the most respect and dignity to the subject. She prefers her name be written that way (and pronounced that way). Note "Zoe Quinn" and "Zoë Quinn" are identical in spelling (it's a font/alphabet shortcoming that we can even have both pages in English Wikipedia) so the use in references is the same with only style differences akin to things like capitalization. It would be rather presumptuous to impose generic Style Guide rules on known exemptions to specific English proper names. Had she chose not to use the diæresis (see what I did there?) we would respect that as well. It's a rather trivial thing, but it is also a personal thing, reflecting how she prefers to be addressed in print and it doesn't conflict with sources. --DHeyward (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoë_Quinn/Archive_2&oldid=1151018817"