This is an archive of past discussions about Zoë Quinn. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archiving for violations of WP:NOTAFORUM and the talk page guidelines. As an RfC has just settled the pronoun matter in favor of she/her/hers pronouns, it's pointless and distracting to continue arguing in favor of those pronouns. Moreover, this talk page is only for discussing improvements to this article, it is not the place for general discussion of pronouns, the article subject, or other editors.--Cúchullaint/c14:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank Christ for small miracles (and thank you for this update, EvergreenFir). Can we all agree now, or are we going to continue with this "they" nonsense as though we speak of some alien hive mind collective? The Cake is a LieT / C17:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
There is an obvious consensus in the RfC to use she/her/hers. If things change in the future we can revisit; until then it's nothing to act indignant about.--Cúchullaint/c18:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of the consensus as I read it following my previous response. In retrospect I probably should have read that beforehand, but hindsight is 20/20, am I right? ;) I was not indignant, BTW, merely frustrated. To me, this appeared a whimsical issue to be solved with applied common sense, although I'm well aware that issues of politics and bureaucracy are conflagratory in such decisions to many people. Frankly, I'm just glad the article now reads like it was written properly. The Cake is a LieT / C18:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
This is one of those article where the personalities of the editors tend to dominate the discussion. Pronouns were only slightly more contentious than using Zoë in place of Zoe. Peculiar positions taken by peculiar fellows.--DHeyward (talk) 12:39 am, Yesterday (UTC−7)
The use of they simply doesn't read easily to people accustomed to reading standard English. The problem is that it's innovation with the English language which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. We should stick to using standard English to ensure that the articles are intelligible for ordinary visitors to this site. The use of they instead of he or she is a niche usage of English and far from standard usage. Veej (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect Veej, this question is about the use of pronouns on this article, and the outcome is clear. The question as to whether it is ever appropriate to use a singular "they" needs to happen at a more general notice board, else it's an article-by-article determination, I think. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
@The Cake is a Lie:@Veej: The community most recently rejected abandonment of singular they at a well-attended RfC just this past May. Use of singular they is expanding in modern English. It does feel awkward to use at first, but respectfully your efforts would be better spent becoming more comfortable with the usage rather than advocating against it. Snuge purveyor (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Quinn and Candace Owens/SocialAutopsy.com
I was just going to revert this edit about Quinn and Candace Owens/SocialAutopsy.com but User:NorthBySouthBaranof beat me to it. Only 1 source (NY Mag) even mentions Quinn, so the section is undue in this BLP. I'm not opposed to including a sentence or two if there are enough sources, but my understanding is that this whole thing is rather tangential to Quinn. Also, Breitbart wouldn't be considered reliable for BLP claims such as these. Woodroar (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I really don't get the objection to the former infobox image. It's slightly irreverent, but it does not strike me as offensive or unencylopedic. With all due respect, I don't find your arguments convincing. While I am tempted to revert, I'll wait and let others weigh in. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The image is a selfie and it's not something that should be used as an infobox image on any article (and I will go as far as to add it adds absolutely nothing to the article in general), FWIW I will add that no one in the above discussion came to any consensus on what image to use however all that being said I'd be more than happy to revert my edits and fire up an RFC, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk22:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
(non-admin closure) Image A is the most-favored image of the five candidate photos, by a substantial margin. While consensus is not a vote, a poll is a common mechanism used on English Wikipedia for choosing lead images when multiple image options are available, provided that arguments are weighed by their quality and their basis in policy. Image A also happens to be the status quo infobox image.- MrX 🖋 20:14, 23 January 2018 (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.
Voting isn't a substitute for consensus. Nothing has changed, and presenting each of these images as being of equal significance is misleading, at best. As I've already explain, this is the only one that isn't borderline insulting. At this point I have to suspect that's the point of this charade. Grayfell (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Not sure why the others are considered--C and D are very, very unflattering for various reasons and D is unacceptably vague. B is awesome but obscures most of her face. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Strong Support It's an excellent, well composed photograph of an unusual subject, and the one which she herself prefers. The others are either mediocre or unflattering. kencf0618 (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Support Count me with Rockypedia and Drmies. Seems like the best to me, though a lot of that is simply personal aesthetic opinion. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Support. Obviously the most well-known and iconic image; it's used on several of the article's sources. This makes it the most natural and appropriate choice for the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
*Support - If this is purely between A and C then A wins hands down, if we're accepting all options still then my first choice would be None (because Image B is the only best one out of them all however this cannot be used due to the camera). –Davey2010Talk16:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Support with the same rational as Drmies. The subject in C appears odd out of context of the whole image. Rhinopias (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC) Editing to expand, as the "unflattering" discussion isn't satisfying to some… B is obviously not very representational, and D is not a good picture (and looks horrible in this comparison). I stand my by reasoning for not agreeing with C and dislike how the subject isn't looking at the camera… it looks awkward. I don't think A is a perfect an outstanding option, so none is a relatively close second. Rhinopias (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I didn't know that the subject's expression of a preference for A took place in 2013 or 2014. Now also in light of E below – and even the wider crop of C from SlimVirgin which I'm not sure why I didn't think of – this RfC is now also confusingly outdated. Rhinopias (talk) 04:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Support per the fact that it's a perfectly fine picture and the subject has expressed a preference for it. Absent a seriously compelling reason not to use it (and I see none presented here), we ought to respect that preference. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - According to Wikipedia's image use policy: "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central." According to the Manual of Style, "the less information [an infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." I believe this photo is too busy and too distracting and not appropriate for an infobox. Further, the fact that the photo's author is also the subject creates potential WP:COI concerns. An encyclopedic photo should be taken by a neutral party.--Rpclod (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - It's blurry, poorly cropped, and much of the subject's face is obscured by her hair. I'm glad it's been said before because I feel like a bit of a stick-in-the-mud making the argument, but a goofy car selfie just isn't encyclopedic. I'm also very unconvinced by arguments based on the subject's favourite picture of herself. Cjhard (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
When dealing with a number of pictures which one might find equally clear and elucidatory, it seems entirely reasonable to me to take aesthetics into consideration. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Image B
Image C
*Support as nom - C looks more normal and is the only image where you can clearly see her face. (A looks more like a selfie and IMHO isn't really appropriate as an image, B although high quality has the camera covering most of her face, and D looks somewhat fuzzy (because it's 3d), –Davey2010Talk22:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Support As Emir writes, this is the only one which presents her face. The argument that it is "unflattering" is directly contradictory our fundamental policy of WP:NPOV. It is not our job to flatter our subjects, it is our job to present them accurately. If the image were insulting, that would be different, but I don't see any way in which it is insulting, she is composed, looking at the camera, and smiling. Unlike, say, A, in which she is grimacing. --GRuban (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Support (Summoned by bot) I don't think it is unflattering. D is no good, B is awesome but obscures her face, and personally I don't like A because it has a odd background. I would support A if that is where the majority is. And don't get me started on the validity of this RfC or how consensus works in reality! L3X1(distænt write)16:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Support from among the choices. This appears to be a generic portrait image of someone, if altered from original slightly. Neutral background, lighting, pose. My question to clarify what seems to be unflattering with it (or even other images) didn't produce any objective answers, so I see no reason to judge these photos by special criteria. Not the best image perhaps, but appears to be the most encyclopedic from the bunch. B covers the subject's face. D is blurry (for our purposes) and rotated. A is rotated, cropped and older than C. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK20:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Support Agree with Davey and Hellknowz. D is definitely very unflattering/perhaps even insulting. However I definitely don't see much issue with C; it's pretty close to a standard portrait and she has a normal, smiling expression. C does somehow look slightly weird on such a small thumbnail - maybe that's what some are referring too? But the larger image is clearly fine. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC) E is the best actually. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Support. As above, "Sorry, but I fail to see how the 2016 image is somehow not complimentary: head-on portrait, smiling, during a professional engagement. WP rarely gets up-to-date free use images of this quality." It was edited, as requested, to remove the mic. It is a high-res image taken during a public-facing professional event. I fail to see how the subject submitting an amateur image several years prior becomes preferable to the 2016 image, unless I've missed her updated opinion somewhere. On any other page, we would use the most recent, representative photo, and I don't see how this wouldn't be it. If you don't like this, you're welcome to reach out for a new image. czar12:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose -- this is a crop of an image taken at at conference; that's why it looks weird / unbalanced. Unsuitable as an infobox image, especially given that a better image is already in use in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Support - In contradistinction to my arguments in opposition to image A, I believe that this picture is clear, neutral, and does not distract from the remainder of the infobox or article.--Rpclod (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Support - Agree with above sentiments. Clear, neutral, appropriate for a Wikipedia article. I honestly do not see what some see as being so unflattering about the photo. I think it's quite nice, actually. Cjhard (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Support. Image C is a high quality near-portrait at a professional speaking engagement. All around, exactly the kind of image we select for biographies. The cropped versions of image E are lower quality images, but credible second place options. Image A is a rather poor third place. It's a partially obscured, lower quality, goofy car selfie with a distracting background. Rather encyclopedic. Image D is just about tied as a lousy third choice. The quality is poor, and I agree with the general assessment that it's an overall poor depiction. Image B is beautiful, but utterly disqualified for almost entirely obscuring the subject. Alsee (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I fixed D a bit to get rid of odd camera angle but new choice E is better quality with same natural facial expression. --DHeyward (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Why the hell are we talking about this again if nothing has changed? This is the third time? Fourth? The current image is still the only clear photo that isn't actively unflattering. Quinn specifically requested that image D not be used, so why is this being proposed except as a dud option to make the only slightly better' option C more appealing? Grayfell (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Because I was unaware of previous discussions and because I want a solid consensus, If you have an issue with this RFC don't participate it's that simple. –Davey2010Talk23:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
That's not how consensus, or Wikipedia, work. The burden is on you to change consensus, not to ignore it and start over when you don't like how it went the first time. Grayfell (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
There was no consensus to begin and I'm not ignoring consensus - I'm solidifying it, Again as I said if you disagree with this RFC you're more than welcome to leave but repeatedly moaning over it isn't going to magically make it disappear, This RFC has started and will continue for the next 30 days. –Davey2010Talk00:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
No, there was consensus; you just didn't look for it. There's no need for this RFC; the matter was already discussed ad nauseum.--Jorm (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, Davey, reopening. Not even 2 days have passed, it's way too early to judge consensus, and a number of editors besides yourself have commented, so it's not just your decision to close it any more, even though you did open it. We need to let this run to find a real consensus. --GRuban (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's not a free image. Wikipedia policy is that we're not allowed to use non-free images to show what living people look like, since it's theoretically possible to take a free image of them, and in this case we even actually have 4. (Well, arguably 3, since even Quinn's own mother wouldn't be able to tell picture B from any other redhead behind a camera.) --GRuban (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Having kept myself mostly out of loop on the subject, why is C considered unflattering? Several editors remark so, but I admit I fail to see the reasons. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK13:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Being absolutely honest all of the images are unflattering - There's not one great image here, Anyway could everyone explain why this image is better than C ? .... Both are equally unflattering so I wanna know what makes this the least unflattering ?, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk00:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Image C Unflattering?
Image C, a wider crop
@Grayfell:@Drmies:@Kencf0618:: Several editors have now asked what makes image C unflattering (or even "borderline insulting"), as the three of you have stated. Could you explain why you believe it is so? Not just to satisfy our curiosity, but so the RfC closer can give proper weight to your arguments? --GRuban (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) I get where you're coming from Doc but if they're all unflattering then it might be helpful to try and explain why A is the least unflattering ?, Obviously we have BLPVIO to think of but at the same time we should try and be honest about it, –Davey2010Talk20:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Davey. At least A is quirky and funny, and it's a picture of someone who obviously doesn't mind having their picture taken at that moment. With C, I'm not sure about that. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, I mean A is a selfie, hard to beat that when it comes to that sort of standard. Do we need WP:SELFIE? Arkon (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Are you perhaps looking at the small thumbnail only? Atleast to me, in the larger image it's seems more clear that she's smiling and happy; however when zoomed out it doesn't seem so. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
hey GRuban, you know exactly why, which is why you're not going to bait me into dignifying your question with an explicit answer. Nice try though. Bless your heart. Rockypedia (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, clearly three of us don't know. It's centered, not blurry, displays her face, she is looking at the camera, smiling, not in an embarrassing pose, nothing that I can see, frankly. Is it that it shows she has piercings in her lips, or she has her hair colored unnaturally? So do all the others. If there is no better answer, I will ask the RfC closer to disregard your arguments. --GRuban (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I will ask the RfC closer to disregard your arguments based on the fact that you have given no indication why you don't understand that photo C puts the subject in an unflattering light. I'll give you one thing, you're obviously very good at bending Wikipedia policy to try and meet your goals while keeping calm in your typed text. I could learn a lot from you, because I'd like to say a few things about your true motivations that aren't printable in the New York Times. Bravo, really. You should teach a class on it. Rockypedia (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
This is baiting. It doesn't matter whether three editors don't understand that it's unflattering, or they don't care if it's unflattering, or if the chose it because it's unflattering. The end result is the same. We don't ignore aesthetic concerns, especially not in a BLP. If you don't understand why this photo is less flattering than the rest, which you admit are not flattering, accept that maybe this isn't your area of expertise and move on. Grayfell (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
We do, however, ignore concerns that people refuse to explain. I'm not a professional photographer by any means, but I've uploaded a fair number of images here. Some are better than others: some are blurrier, or don't display the subject's face, or have the subject in an awkward pose, or embarrassing expression, a hundred other issues, but they can all be stated. If you want to say it's your personal preference, that's one thing, but if you say there is something objectively wrong with the image, say what it is. --GRuban (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I did explain it, you just don't like it. If want critique of your own photographs, go elsewhere, or not, I don't care, as you should know full well that's totally irrelevant. If you want us to give a detailed critique of photo of a woman who has become known primarily as a target of a harassment campaign, which, as is common for women, have fixated on her physical appearance and specifically to Quinn involve photographs of her, then yes, you are baiting us into contributing to that harassment. Good lord. Grayfell (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Saying that this maybe isn't an area of expertise to someone is not an explanation, but bordering on being uncivil. The onus is on those who say that an image is unflattering, if they can't prove it is objectively wrong. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
WTF? "unflattering" and "objective" in the same sentence? Are you deliberately trying to make any explanation impossible? And why do you think an aesthetic judgement such as this one requires any explanation at all? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Why might some Wikipedia editors insist on a detailed discussion of a woman’s appearance? Why would they claim to "instruct” closing administrators to disregard any arguments from people who decline to discuss that woman’s appearance? Ought we to adjourn this “RFC” to a more suitable venue, since it appears we’re inevitably headed to AN/I or AE. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Why? Because we want the best Wikipedia articles. Strangely enough, not everyone's Wikipedia editing is intended to either benefit or harm the encyclopedia subjects, some of us -most of us, hopefully! - write to improve the encyclopedia. Methinks you're starting at shadows and suspecting us all of ulterior motives that are just not present. We can objectively explain what is wrong with image A, and right with image C, without discussing "the woman's appearance" as such, just the image. Image A is slanted, her face isn't fully visible, one eye is covered by hair, she seems to be grimacing, rather than smiling, because one side of her mouth looks to be open wider than the other, one of the most prominent features of the image is her fist in the foreground, covered with a distracting design, all of which contributes to the image not accurately portraying what she looks like. (She isn't noted for going about with her ornamented fist in front of her face, right? She's neither a tattoo model nor a boxer?) This doesn't make the image unusable, it just makes it worse than image C, in which Quinn's face is centered, vertical, and completely visible, the background is monotone, there are no distracting elements, and in which she appears calm, smiling, and at peace. All those elements seem highly desirable in an image illustrating what a person looks like, and none of them a "a detailed discussion of a woman's appearance", just of the image. --GRuban (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
The only people discussing her appearance are those that are calling any of these images "unflattering." Her preferred picture has the most weight but unexplained and subjective reasons are not valid arguments. --DHeyward (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Unflattering or not, D is just a bad photo. It's fuzzy, blurry, and out of focus. There's some weird shit in the background which distracts. It's bad composition. The lighting is bad. Etc. The only reason someone would chose D is because they're trying to be a donkfole. Volunteer Marek 04:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek - Not sure if you're aware but this discussion is inregards to Image C, Only one person out of what 10-15 have !voted for D so we can safely rule it out of this discussion quite honestly, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk03:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I've created a comparison here of A and C (the only real contenders) as how it'd actually look in the article - I don't think the above way is a good way to do it, especially when trying to do subjective comparisons. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:58, 8 December 2017 (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.
Just a suggestion but as this has got all confusing would it be a good idea to restart this and have A, C or none as options ? (so we leave out B and D) ? (or maybe not have None as an option?), Just a suggestion, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk16:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Well he also said "Image B is the only best one out of them all however this cannot be used due to the camera" so I think it can be removed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Okie dokie thanks all I'll just leave it open, I just wasn't sure if it might of helped that was all, no worries, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk17:55, 8 December 2017 (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.
We know the subject's attitude to A - she's fine with it in the article. We don't know her attitude toward C. I'm seeing no consensus for change here. Please don't ping me for anything else related to this discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
For me this is definitely a second choice. I'd actually say it's about equal with choice A, but knowing that one was endorsed by the subject gives it a slight edge to my mind. Thanks for the alternate suggestion. Dumuzid (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
This is my preference as the most natural facial expression and is better than D in terms of quality. There is a similar photo on Flickr at the same event but the license limits commercial use (CC by SA 2.0) --DHeyward (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
That image on Flickr concerns me because it was uploaded by one of the people involved in making the video. I emailed him before I found the video but haven't heard back yet. He released his image cc-by-nc (which we can't use) on Flickr, but the organizers released the video cc-by on YouTube. SarahSV(talk)17:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
First choice - For me atleast this is absolutely perfect - I can't find fault with this whatsoever, I appreciate the subject may have uploaded or chosen A but we should use images that we like not her (and I don't mean that disrespectfully), Anyway perfect image in my eyes. –Davey2010Talk17:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I deliberately didn't centre her, and the tartan skirt looks good, so I didn't want to crop it. But I like the look of your crop too. SarahSV(talk)17:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Clearly there aren't enough versions. :-) This one (on the left), keeps the skirt like Sarah's (though does crop away the faint YouTube status bar along the bottom), but removes blank space like Galobtter's. I think there is room on the page for several images of the subject; it's not a small article. --GRuban (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Second choice. Alternatively, use this image in the body of the article -- i.e. when the Gamegate is discussed, such as with caption: "Quinn at X event, Y year". The image looks a bit similar to what's on the cover of the book, so it would be relatable. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The longer I look at these photos, including E, the more I like all of them. So I've arrived at the point now where I have genuinely no preference, so I don't think I have much to add here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Nice work—I'm all for this. I would prefer a square headshot for the infobox if there is a reasonable crop, but otherwise recommend Sarah's E image as proposed. We don't need to "re-run" the RfC if we can find consensus here. czar10:59, 15 December 2017 (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.
Neutrality concerns
The Gamergate section is definitely not neutral. It only represents one side of the story and does not contain any references to what the "gaters" say or do to justify their actions. In fact, the Gamergate controversy article itself is no better, being little more than a compilation of one-sided propaganda. I think someone with knowledge of the subject should fix them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goren (talk • contribs) 20:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
There definitely are, otherwise it wouldn't be a controversy. You may claim that some of the sides don't matter or count, that'd be your personal position, but you can't in right mind claim they don't exist.--Goren (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Should Zoe's patreon be included in the External links section ?,
External links should only include links that would help or benefit our readers .... I don't see how a Patreon link would help or benefit our readers?,
Ofcourse people may want to donate to her and that's fine but they should then find this link through her website or other social medias,
Given the link has existed in the article for a year without issue[1] I figured I'd ask here,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk22:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you and forgive my redundant post below (since deleted!). As I have said, the Patreon strikes me as quite equivalent to a personal homepage; many article subjects have personal home pages which financially benefit them. Moreover, there is a specific Wkipedia template for Patreon creators. Chapo Trap House and Amanda Palmer have Patreon links (among others, I am sure). If you're trying to learn more about a subject, a personal homepage or Patreon site makes good sense to me. It is absolutely not a reliable source or anything of the sort, but as an external link, I think it makes all the sense in the world. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The use violates WP:EL as it links to non-encyclopedic content. The only exception would be if this is the only official external link a person has per WP:ELOFFICIAL. But that is almost always not the case for Patreon links and not the case here (the link is one of the top links on the official website). I imagine it existed for a year same way some of the other bios that use this template that have half a dozen or more external links to every person's online presence. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK22:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it depends on the Patreon page itself. I think I have seen some pages that have a lot of info, similar to a blog, available to anyone. But this page doesn't have any of that - just asks for sponsorship. I don't see how that has any encyclopedic value. People can visit her homepage and I'm guessing there is a link there to her Patreon if they want to sponsor her. (I don't care how long the link was there. I just saw it today.) —МандичкаYO 😜 23:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I think we can regard a Patreon site maintained and created by the subject as an official page, and thus not excluded by WP:ELOFFICIAL. In this case it is both controlled by the subject and covers their game development, for which they are notable, so all is fine there. As to whether or not it provides a lot of content, I'm somewhat indifferent - there are posts about what she's doing going back many years, so there is more than just requests for sponsorship, but it hasn't been updated since 2017. - Bilby (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't exclude more than one official website, but does say that normally we wouldn't link to two. I'm the sure of the case here, but it doesn't seem to mean that this isn't an option. I'll wait to see what the consensus is. - Bilby (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Her patreon is linked from her official website, isn't it? Why should we link both? Her patreon offers no information but only shills for money. How is that encyclopedic? —МандичкаYO 😜 00:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I think we may be looking at different Patreon sites. I'm not worried if we decide not to link to it, but it does have information beyond asking for support. - Bilby (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bilby: It really doesn't matter. Crowdfunding sites are not allowed in external links. See the comments below please with a link to the policy. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
It isn't quite that simple. Which is why we've permitted Patreon links on other biographies before. Again, we'll see how is goes, but we need to keep the issues clear. - Bilby (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't really care if the link is included or not, but until there's a new consensus, the article should retain the status quo.--Jorm (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that this fails ELMIN and we should not include it. Additionally, although ELOFFICIAL is controlling over ELNO, it seems to be counter to the spirit of two of the ELNO criteria: #4 "Links mainly intended to promote a website" and #5 "web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services". —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Her Patreon is no different than a GoFundMe page, which violates WP:ELNO #4: "Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions and crowdfunding pages. See Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming." Patreon is crowdfunding. Wikipedia should be a neutral site, not a gateway to funding people, whoever they are. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
You may have missed it, but ELNO starts with "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject" in bold letters. Woodroar (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
An "official" crowdfunding site makes no difference. There is no content so to speak on her Patreon site, meaning it fails as an official site, which requires that "The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable." The only content is her asking for funding. —МандичкаYO 😜 01:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it contains fantastic content or anything. If anything, I'm leaning against its inclusion but I haven't really made a decision yet. It's just that ELNO wouldn't apply because, content or not, this is clearly her official Patreon page. Woodroar (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
All Patreon pages are "official" pages, are they not? It doesn't make a difference. "Official" crowdfunding sites are not allowed, whether it's Patreon, GoFundMe or Kickstarter. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, we normally link to only one official website of the subject (generally the one the subject / the people consider as their main outlet). The guideline states this as 'Normally, only one official link is included' (original bolding!). It continues to state 'If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances.' (my bolding) .. yes, a second official website is not forbidden, but one needs very good reasons to do so, and the burden is on the editor who wants to include that link to make that case, and to make sure that there is consensus for it. That bar is high for links like twitters, facebooks and similar. Generally, a reason to include those links would be that the second external link is a significant claim to the subjects' notability (think Donald Trump where we link his twitter next to the official website). For advertising/soapboxing/propaganda sites (fundraisers, linkedin, petition) that bar is even higher. (and if the already listed official site is prominently linking to the sites, it is less needed to be included even if it does approach the bar). Here the article is not even speaking about her activities in fundraising money for her work, let alone that it is a recurring subject in independent sources or that it is a major claim to the notability of the subject. Here, any second official site that I can now think of does not pass any bar for inclusion, and hence, like usually, this article should carry only one official link. --Dirk BeetstraTC12:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. The article already has a link to her personal website. There's no reason to also clutter the article with an advertisement for her donations page. We do not do that for the overwhelming majority of BLPs.Jwray (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree as a general rule that Patreon or other crowd-funding websites shouldn't be linked on Wikipedia articles; we're not here to promote crowdfunding opportunities of any stripe, and anyway, people should be able to easily find them through the subject's official website if so desired. They should be removed from external links sections wherever found; I note that the template which was used to insert Patreon links to Chapo Trap House and a couple other sites is up for deletion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree with the general consensus here that her Patreon should not be included. If it had more relevant content, useful information or updates about Quinn's life or happenings (available without paying), then I would think differently. But as it is, it's more like a kickstarter for Quinn's life than it is an official blog or website. It's against the spirit of Wikipedia to include things like this.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)20:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
not all online criticism constitutes "harassment"
Ms. Quinn was subjected to extensive criticism and harassment. This is objectively accurate, and for the opening paragraph to characterize the entire online reaction to Ms. Quinn's public life as merely "harassment", does not uphold anything akin to an NPOV standard. Most online content about Ms. Quinn consisted (or consists) of people simply expressing (often critical) opinions about her. Publicly disseminating a critical opinion about a public figure, is not "harassment". It is criticism. Most of the online reaction to Ms. Quinn objectively constituted criticism. Only a minority of that content had any objective relationship to what can be reasonably be termed harassment.
KevinOKeeffe (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Most online content is not considered WP:DUE for mention on Wikipedia. Reliable sources (like the New Yorker) characterize Quinn's treatment as harassment, and they note that the primary accusation against them was proven false. If you want to include some mention of them, you're probably going to need to provide multiple high-quality reliable sources that say she was subject to legitimate criticisms in addition to harassment. I don't believe those sources exist. Nblundtalk17:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
You're going to have to provide a source that there was legitimate criticism, I'm afraid. Good luck finding one.--Jorm (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
It seems that some additional details about the status of the project are valuable for readers. The project is now 3 years old, and show no signs of ever being completed. Nothing has been produced and backers are not happy.
You are citing to a primary source for this info, which is okay, but should not be done lightly. My preference would be to wait for a neutral third-party to report on it, for sourcing as well as a better way to assess notability. Others may disagree, but I would say no for now. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
We should be preferring they/them over she/her in this article, per the subject's stated preferences and MOS:GENDERID (Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources). The subject is a reliable source about themselves.
I personally think the article should absolutely go with they/them. And while I am absolutely sympathetic to that feeling of "ramrodding," it does seem funny that ancient Indo-European speech patterns should feel to us like immutable natural laws. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Quinn has unambiguously stated that they are genderfluid[2] and prefer "they/them" pronouns [3][4] so we should abide by that per MOS:GENDERID and WP:BLP. As they explain in their Twitter thread, the only reason they were in the closet about it until now was due to harassment: "Honestly all this overblown ridiculous shit being flung my way has convinced me to stop living with one foot in the closet and really commit this time. These people are gonna hate me no matter what I do and I can’t avoid it, and I feel no loss knowing that. I’m genderfluid." That seems like a pretty unambiguous statement to me. Kaldari (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll freely admit The Big A is interfering here, and here goes anyway; none of that says anything about Quinn's pronoun preference. My personal inclinations aside, that quote doesn't show Quinn stating anything about personal pronouns, and especially until that I'd be extremely reticent about forcing highly non-standard (borderline unreadable, if you've ever perused Anthem) English into an English-language encyclopedia. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm honestly sympathetic, being an old fuddy-duddy; I have the head of a linguistic descriptivist but my heart still yearns for prescriptivism. That being said, I believe, even in an encyclopedic context, my grammatical tastes, and even some amount of readability, should yield to a person's preference. To that end, if you look at link "3" above, Quinn is asked point-blank which pronouns she prefers. Her response is simply "They/them." Likewise, at "4," she writes: "I don’t ever want to have the pronouns conversation because I feel equally apathetic to being called “he” or “she” so I guess if you just want to be accurate go for “they” but I won’t be offended by any." So that's where I come out, but, as ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I quite agree! But maybe I was just unclear before. I think we should use "they/them" because, even though it sounds unlovely to me, that's an expressed preference by the subject. Or perhaps I am missing the point altogether? Dumuzid (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I'm weird because I have near 40 years experience reading roleplaying game rulebooks, but "they/them" feels totally natural and normal to me, and I'm always confused when people have a problem with it.--Jorm (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
As I said, I'm a fuddy-duddy. It sounds wrong to me. But so does a person being 'hung' (rather than 'hanged'), and any time someone uses 'enormity' to mean something other than a great evil, I mentally shake my fist. All that being said, I've long since realized that my personal preferences don't amount to a hill of beans, so I've consoled myself by building my idiolect in a just-so fashion. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and added a quick note about that Quinn uses the gender neutral pronoun "they" to the lead. I realize this might be iffy since Quinn actually expressed some ambivalence here, but I do think some in-text specification is warranted. Nblundtalk15:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
It looks like this was changed back, and then partially corrected again. Would anyone mind sorting that out? While this article isn't under a 1RR restriction, I'd still rather avoid reverting since I've done so once already today. Woodroar (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I would like to see a switch somewhere that allows readers to either see "they/their" (by default) or "she/her" (personal choice). I see many news reports use the latter when discussing Quinn. Also, these are new grammar rules, as during school, I was only taught to use he/his and she/her for a person's pronouns. Repurposing pronouns such as "it" and "they", and inventing new ones like "ne" and "ze", may also not translate well in other languages, such as French. By having a switch, this can bring better clarity to the pronouns topic. --LABcrabs (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Let me get this straight: you want the ability to ignore the subject's preferred pronouns in place of ones that you want to read, or were taught in school? Aside from being technically impossible to do (this is not a semantic wiki), it's kind of... tone deaf.--Jorm (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Further, other languages don't need to worry about what pronouns we use. Articles are not translated by machines. In fact, the word "translate" is incorrect; articles are written in their native language. The author will use the correct pronouns for the language they are writing in.--Jorm (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
(e/c) With all due respect, this is English Wikipedia, and how things translate into French is not really our bailiwick. Moreover, news reports will use their own style guidelines while we use Wikipedia's manual of style, which states, per MOS:GENDERID, that we "[g]ive precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources." For singular they, we can refer to an obscure author named William Shakespeare, who wrote (in The Rape of Lucrece):
Now leaden slumber with life's strength doth fight;
And every one to rest themselves betake,
Save thieves, and cares, and troubled minds, that wake.
@The Blade of the Northern Lights: "...none of that says anything about Quinn's pronoun preference". I provided two links to unambiguous statements from Zoë that they prefer they/them pronouns:
lovelynxie: "Also speaking of that, which pronouns do you prefer to be called?", Zoe: "They/them", lovelynxie: "Aw yea same, that’ll be easy to remember!"[5]
"if you just want to be accurate go for “they” but I won’t be offended by any"[6]
Can this article have a more accurate birthday or because of the harassment Quinn faced we shouldn't allow to have it?--Mayimbú (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I forgot about this with all the other changes going on in this subject area. I agree with Jorm's revert here. Per WP:BLPPRIVACY, we should include dates of birth only when they've been widely published in reliable sources. Personal details that could be seen as controversial or negative also require high-quality sources and at least several of them to meet WP:DUE. If additional sources exist we can certainly discuss them here, along with how to introduce that material. Woodroar (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Describing Quinn
How do we describe Quinn's positions or roles? It seems to me that the long-standing description—almost 4 years—was adequate and sourced, but it has been changed twice recently by Ashmoo and now by Newo70 without any discussion. Is there a reason for the change? WP:BRD says that it should be reverted until there's consensus for that change, but of course I'd rather not edit war over this. Woodroar (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Unless you are allowing the word "artist" to lose all meaning (as it has in the music industry), it can be argued that the description of Quinn as "artist" has been unsourced all this time. --Orange Mike | Talk13:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I misread the diff as removing video game programmer, writer, and artist. You're correct that artist is unsourced, and I have no objections to that being removed if it can't be reliably sourced. I think we should keep video game programmer instead of changing it to simply "programmer", unless we have sources saying that she does programming outside of video games? Plus we should keep the serial commas per MOS:SERIAL. Woodroar (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
A
B
C
D
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_cropped.jpg)
_cropped_(cropped).jpg)
_(cropped)_(2).jpg)