Talk:Brianna Wu

Edit request: Mentioning her strong Zionist/Pro-Israel advocacy

I refrained from asking for this to be added to the article as this hasn't reached the news until rather recently, but Wu has spent most of the past year vocally supporting Israel.

https://www.thefp.com/p/brianna-wu-bari-weiss-gamergate-progressive-antisemitism-honestly

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/09/09/opinion/israel-hamas-war-progressives-antisemitism/

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/09/11/opinion/letters-to-the-editor-progressives-antisemitism-jews-war/

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2024-06-02/ty-article/.premium/american-political-pundits-feud-on-social-media-over-israels-war-against-hamas/0000018f-d91e-dd44-a3ef-db1fa0df0000

https://www.newsnationnow.com/danabramslive/progressives-are-blaming-jewish-super-pac-for-losses-analyst/

Unreliable sources:

https://quillette.com/2024/09/25/podcast-252-trans-rights-israel-and-the-progressive-circus-2/

https://nypost.com/2024/09/10/opinion/progs-have-become-monsters-repudiate-joe-kamala-and-other-commentary/

I think it warrants a mention, as advocating for Israel and Zionism has been her primary activism for a while now. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 20:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@HadesTTW this isn't really an actionable request in this form. Is there particular wording you would like added to the article? Elli (talk | contribs) 23:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Elli How about this sentence in Career, after "She is a trans woman"?

Since the outbreak of the Israel–Hamas war, Wu received media attention for her vocal support of Israel. She has argued in The Boston Globe that "my fellow leftists are betraying our Jewish allies" and "the casual antisemitism I’d looked past in progressive spaces [are] impossible to ignore."

And make sure to add the category "American Zionists." She identifies as such in the first article. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 00:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

References

 Done With a little bit of stylistic reorganisation. Since this is a contentious article, I'd be happy to revert on any disagreement. Happy‑melon 12:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: Category changes

Please remove category [[Category:Video game development companies]], since this is an article about a person, not a company. I have already added the category to the redirect Giant Spacekat, the company in question.

Please add categories [[Category:American transgender women]] and per the previous section, [[Category:American Zionists]] and [[Category:Activists against antisemitism]] and [[Category:Opposition to antisemitism in the United States]].

Qualiesin (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Do we have reliable sources that she's against antisemitism or only that she's a zionist? Those two things aren't the same. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done, partially. I removed the video game company category. I don't see how the other categories suggested are valid, possibly the zionist one. See the discussion immediately above, which may shed some light. If sources don't characterize her as zionist or antisemitist, then neither should the category listings. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

From the Free Press article:

"We discuss Israel and why Brianna identifies as a Zionist."

She later explains in the video that she strongly supports Israel and uses the label "Zionist" for herself. She also has identified as such on Twitter.

https://www.thefp.com/p/brianna-wu-bari-weiss-gamergate-progressive-antisemitism-honestly

https://x.com/BriannaWu/status/1794497394626949490

HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 00:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the American Zionists category. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 16 November 2024

In the "Personal Life" section, uncapitalize "life" as it is not a proper noun. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

I'm requesting:

1. That, right above the paragraph about Wu's views regarding the Israel-Hamas war, a level-3 heading (===) named "political views" be added
2. That the following text be added, using this reference [1], under the aforementioned "political views" heading: "Wu has been a supporter of transgender rights, although she has not identified herself as "LGBTQIA+", which she considers to be a form of identity politics. She has used anti-trans language and slurs, including the word "tranny", which she once referred herself as. She has identified herself as an opponent of gender self-identification and has advocated against the rights of some transgender people to enter female spaces. Wu is a supporter of gender-affirming care and has described “lunatic trans activists” as an obstacle to transgender healthcare bigger than Republican activists. She has also argued that the transgender community had become an "extremist movement". Her views on transgender topics have been criticised by transgender activists including civil rights lawyer Alejandra Caraballo, who said that Wu was attempting to "police the entire [transgender] community", and Elon Musk's estranged daughter Vivian Jenna Wilson, who stated that Wu was trying to "rationalise bigotry". Her views on such topics, as well as her political positions on the Israel-Gaza war, made Wu a controversial political influencer on social media; in 2024, she claimed to be one of Bluesky's most blocked users."

Badbluebus (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@ValarianB. Please explain why this meets WP:FRINGE. Also, WP:PINKNEWS is reliable and I don't see why edit requests can't be made for potentially controversial edits. Badbluebus (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

no. we're not a platform for fringe criticisms, and this template is only to be used to suggest routine, non-controversial edits anyway. ValarianB (talk)

I am not sure how fringe applies here... Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

it is a grouse from a far-leftist source, which is imo the definition of fringe. be that as it may, "Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus" is pretty straightforward and clear. this is not the sort of edit that will be added by mere request, so if you or the OP feel this is worthy of inclusion, then initiate a proper discussion to see if there is consensus to do so. ValarianB (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

As the contents of the edit are all supported by a source that is listed as reliable on RSP, I thought the edit would not be really that controversial. Anyways, I opened a thread on BLPN to see if any consensus can be built on this. I would also advise that you avoid answering fully protected edit requests, since they are supposed to be handled by admins. Badbluebus (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

You can't possibly be serious. A far-leftist source? It's pink news, not Granma. And Pink News is reasonably reliable for LGBT stuff, definitely including the twitter drama of minor online influencers. Simonm223 (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

seems due inclusion. I would suggest including this myself. suggesting WP:PINKNEWS is extreme leftist when that is not the consensus of most editors seems wrong. There is no mention about it being leftist in either the listing, and the RFC does not indicate any consensus for attributing it.

This also is an inappropriate application of WP:FRINGE. fringe is mostly for pseudoscience, alternative medicine, and conspiracy theory topics that are not accepted by the vast majority of the mainstream. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Come on, now. I don't think it's automatically fringe just because PinkNews said it—but pretending it's not a leftist organization is disingenuous.

If one checks the past discussions, it seems most feel PN should not be a source for whether someone is "transphobic" or "homophobic", but is to be considered reliable mostly in the context of at least not outright fabricating quotations; the edit request uses—IMO—loaded language in a few bits, and sort of seems to be trying to paint a certain picture in terms of what is quoted & how it is presented (e.g., placing the "lunatic trans activists" quote in the same sentence as "proponent of gender-affirming care" is strange, given that these have no real relation to each other; seems sorta like someone trying a technique—"the [inverse] compliment sandwich", sort of thing)...

...but it does appear to largely be using actual quotes from Wu & others (depending on the source for the "criticism from activists" & "policing the entire trans community!" bits); so... I dunno. In any case: seems like some pretty small potatoes, overall.

[edit: although—see user Bilby's comment on another of the quotations, below; unsure if this apparently-biased framing—taking Bilby at their word that it is an inaccurate portrayal of the actual interview; wouldn't doubt it, anyway—originates from PinkNews or the edit requestor, and don't care enough to check... but it reinforces the impression I mentioned above re: what brush the artist wishes to paint with here. er, so to speak.]

Himaldrmann (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The current WP:RSP status for PinkNews states it's generally reliable.. The link you posted showed the consensus 4 years ago, and if you scroll down a bit more to the next section, you'll see an RFC someone started, where the close indicates that the broader Wikipedia community agreed PinkNews met editorial guidelines we expect.

In general, WP:PUBLICFIGURE is the main thing, we can't add critical info of Brianna Wu, as it would be undue, unless multiple reliable sources all make note of it. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree---but I'm angry... pleased* that you've elegantly made a similar-but-better point than the one I had attempted to make, and in about 1/4th the space...

---

...unfortunately, I cannot control my logorrhea (help), and so: here's a bunch of nonsense about a minor point re: PN that's not really directly relevant (since, as you point out, the proposed edit falls afoul of other guidelines unrelated to the source at hand); but, y'know, just in case PinkNews becomes a hot topic or something in the near future:

---

...I stand by my characterization of PN, though: 29/45, or ~65%, of respondents to the RfC (counting "Guy Macon's" comment as corresponding to Option 2, and not counting any struck-out comments) ended up saying either:

• While it's not reliable for speculation about someone's sexual orientation or being LGBT-phobic, it is reliable for quotes from the subject and non-controversial facts. ⌁   §   [Reliable] on statements of fact, [unreliable]/use caution when talking about actual people. ⌁  [Option 2 "voters"]

...or else:

• PinkNews is at this point far less reliable than sources such as the Daily Mail, which have been deprecated. ⌁   §   (1) it is not reliable for statements about a persons [sic] sexuality or their attitudes toward LGBT issues, unless it is a direct quote from the subject, and (2) citations to it should be attributed and have an inline citation. ⌁  [Options 3 & 4 voters]

Many of the remaining 16 respondents (i.e., those who chose option #1) attribute their choice to the tireless efforts of two especial editors, who seem to have replied to nearly every critical evaluation with some variation of "nuh-uh, all of the criticisms of PinkNews have been debunked!"...

...which, I think, is vastly over-stating the case; but, more to the point: even these two particular editors (quite possibly single-... er, double-handedly... responsible for the RfC's "green" outcome!) acknowledge the issues with xyz-phobia accusations & leftward bias re: PN:

• FWIW, PinkNews' editorial policy states their political stance and acknowledges how it influences their tone when they report on politicians and other entities they find homophobic. To me, that's actually preferable to a source like Fox or Daily Kos that portrays itself as neutral[. . .] ⌁   §   I strongly support adding Guy Macon's qualifier ("requires inline citations for controversial statements, unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality or homophobia other than direct quotes") to the text box. ⌁

(≜ "Armadillopteryx")

• [The] conclusion [of PN's detractors] is that it is "Hyper-partisan, Liberal" because of its "Focus on pro-LGBT message even though underlying story is very loosely related to LGBT issues". That last point may be true, [ . . . ] but I would call that "niche" rather than "hyper-partisan". Any of our editors should know how to read the story with appropriate caveats [. . .] ⌁

(≜ "Newimpartial" [or something like that]; emphasis added)

---

...and, finally (& perhaps most-importantly), if I may quote the actual entry at WP:PINKNEWS (emphasis added):

• There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. Most of those who commented on PinkNews' reliability for statements about a person's sexuality said that such claims had to be based on direct quotes from the subject. ⌁

---which, I think, matches decently well with the wording of my original point.

Now, I can't actually remember what my original point was (something about PN being not-entirely-reliable & maybe biased, or maybe-not-reliable & entirely biased?), but quite possibly it was pretty good & has now been supported in some way? Well, we can only hope.

Cheers,

Himaldrmann (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

If you want to relitigate the PinkNews close or start your own RFC, feel free to on WP:RSN. The point of an RFC is not to read through the individual opinions of editors, but for a close that summarizes and aggregates the opinions to identify what the rough community consensus is. the close by MrX is the only pertinent part of the RFC for current consensus. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the article comes across as very anti Brianna Wu, and that in at least one occasion the author significantly misrepresents Wu's comments. In that case, the author writes that Wu stated "some trans people should not be allowed access to female spaces." In checking the linked source, that was not what Wu was saying, or at the very least that simplified account used by the author misrepresents the actual text, and thus I do not think we should be saying that she "has advocated against the rights of some transgender people to enter female spaces." That the author misrepresented her on this point, and perhaps others, makes me very uncomfortable with the claims by the author about things Wu has written where a source is not provided. The other concern is weight. This is a large section to devote an account by a single author, in a single article, that relies almost entirely on quotes drawn from Twitter and Threads. I think I'd rather use a different source than one which has misrepresented the subject, and I'd prefer to rely on more than one source for these claims. - Bilby (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

yeah, WP:PUBLICFIGURE indicates that for a public figure, we should generally have at least two or more sources to prove dueness of critical information. Can try to look for other sources later, but agree that unless at least 2 sources report, we cannot include. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The proposed addition seems quite long (and goes into a lot of detail) to be sourced to a single short news article (as opposed to e.g. a major biography covering the matter in great detail, or many different RS covering the matter). Although the source is reliable, I think a shorter summary of just the major point(s) is more likely to be WP:DUE; alternatively, a version with this many details could be DUE if they were supported (and given WEIGHT) by enough RS. -sche (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this: some general idea of Brianna Wu's views here is probably DUE but not this whole paragraph as worded. Loki (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

This is far too much detail based on one tabloidy source for a BLP. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)