Jump to content

Talk:Zoë Quinn/Archive 3

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

Something

http://www.fastcompany.com/3043670/most-creative-people-2015/zoe-quinn-and-alex-lifschitz Not familiar with the source. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe that Fast Company (magazine) is a reliable source. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe, but is there any useful information in the link? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Court case

Eugene Volokh writes for The Washington Post about Quinn's case against her ex, Gjoni: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/24/you-are-also-ordered-not-to-post-any-further-information-about-the-plaintiff/ He suggests the court order against Gjoni is unconstitutional. AWildAppeared (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece and labeled as such. It's not worth inclusion.--Jorm (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Eugene Volokh has an academic reputation as a legal expert, and he is definitely reliable for his opinions. As this article does not touch on the restraining order, there is no point of including this here. But I will add this to the gamergate controversy article. Brustopher (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't Quinn's article include coverage of her legal case? Apart from The Washington Post, it's also been mentioned in other places ([1], [2], [3]). AWildAppeared (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I am more or less with Brustopher here; I actually think it's more significant as to Gamergate in a wider sense than as to Ms. Quinn personally. While it could go in, I am not sure it's needed or would add all that much. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Volokh's article uses Quinn's former name. In past we have been keeping that name out of the article and revdelling revisions (and comments here on talk) where it appears. I guess now that this name has been connected with Quinn's in a reliable source, it can stay? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I was typing that we should include it as you wrote that. Since it is supported byb An RS, let's include it! Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @David Eppstein: This a WP:NEWSBLOG piece, (see Editorial independence.) I'd say it's best if we continue to avoid using her former name. — Strongjam (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
What more reliable source than a legal expert writing about a court case? AWildAppeared (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
For his opinion on a legal case fine, but nothing more than that. As for her former name we should respect her privacy and not overweight this, as it's a WP:NEWSBLOG, not a piece under the editorial control the WaPo. — Strongjam (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a NEWSBLOG written by the preeminent authority on 1st amendment law, followed by at least one Supreme Court Justice. It's a perversion of word "reliable" to argue this falls outside it and Boston (magazine) (whose article showcases the piece "The Real-Life Dramas of Young Doctors - Sex, Drinking and Drugs") falls within it. That is not the intent of WP:RS. 172.98.67.8 (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
What's your point? I'm just saying we shouldn't use this to source her name into the article. Not that it can't be used for his legal analysis. — Strongjam (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
If you concede it's more reliable than some "RS" I don't see your point in excluding it as a source for claims for which we'd not exclude these lesser sources. 172.98.67.8 (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The court case uses her birth name. A legal expert writing about the court case would correctly identify her. I don't see why her birth name wouldn't be included in an encyclopedia. As far as I know, that's standard practice on Wikipedia. AWildAppeared (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Standard practice for celebrities of their own accord. Not so much where someone is thrust into the public eye involuntarily - especially if there is ongoing litigation. So it depends on the level and kind of fame involved, and whether Wikimedia may be legally liable. --Jobrot (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We clearly should not use Quinn’s former name, regardless of its use by one weblog. We could likely use this opinion, but is it significant to the subject of this article? The question here is the nature and use of injunctive relief, in which Quinn might have an interest but which does not seem, at this point, to be central to her biography. The court case may or may not prove important to the biography of the subject: we’ll know more in the fullness of time. Once a decision is reached in the case, perhaps, we will better be able to see where we stand and whether this belongs in Quinn’s biography or, perhaps, elsewhere in Wikipedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Why would an encyclopedia not note her former name? AWildAppeared (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I wish someone advocating its exclusion would answer this directly. Including legal names in pseudonymous articles is standard practice. 172.98.67.8 (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Because no reliable sources deem it important enough to report on, only op-eds. Woodroar (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
This is the same argument you've made below and my response is the same: op-eds are given less weight for contested or controversial claims - this is neither. Several reputable sites have published it, primary sources repeat it, I genuinely don't see the objection. 172.98.67.8 (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Standard practice for celebrities of their own accord. Not so much where someone is thrust into the public eye involuntarily - especially if there is ongoing litigation. So it depends on the level and kind of fame involved, and whether Wikimedia may be legally liable.--Jobrot (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This is clearly labelled as an opinion piece. We shouldn't be using it to support any statements regarding living persons. Woodroar (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't be used to support controversial statements without attributing them to the author. The subject's legal name, a matter of public record, is noncontroversial. 172.98.67.8 (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
We don't use court documents or other legal/public documents, either. We assume that information like this is private unless widely covered in reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I've not argued for the inclusion of primary sources anywhere; merely that they're evidence the claim (in secondary sources) is noncontroversial. If you're arguing for the exclusion of this secondary source based on OP-ED you need to show the claim is contentious or disputed. Can you? 172.98.67.8 (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Quinn has gone out of her way to use a pseudonym. Publishing a subjects legal name under such circumstance is contentious. See also (emphasis mine):
* WP:BLP Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.
* WP:BLPSPS Never use self-published sources [...] "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.
* WP:BLPPRIVACY people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object.
— Strongjam (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
That's interesting. Thank you. AWildAppeared (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
According to Volokh, 'Zoe Quinn' is her legal name now. PublicolaMinor (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Volokh merely says that he is 'told' she has legally changed her name. Without casting any aspersions on Mr. Volokh, I would look/wait for something a bit more concrete before asserting that her legal name has changed. Dumuzid (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2015

Concerning the following sentence (found in "Harassment and Gamergate" subsection: "Based on claims in the post Quinn was falsely accused of receiving positive coverage from a journalist she was in a relationship with."

Citation Needed. 132.170.193.156 (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Citation: [4], which links to several related citations. The Gamergate Controversy page supplied any number of additional citations as well. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I've added a citation in-line that supports the assertion directly. — Strongjam (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Can these sources be used for article?

I think the primary reason she is notable is because of the GamerGate controversy and these posts explore the legal aspects of this controversy well, but its legal aspects is not well reflected in the article at present. Or does this information belong in Gamergate controversy instead? 14.52.172.5 (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The first source is a self-published opinion piece on a content marketing site for lawyers and law firms. The second two sources are also self-published opinion pieces that are editorially independent of The Washington Post. None of these sources would be appropriate for any claims involving living persons–which is virtually everything in each article—not to mention that their opinions would be UNDUE in any article at the moment. If their opinions are correct–and even if they're not–I'm sure it will be covered in a reliable source eventually. Woodroar (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how academic meditations on prior restraint are particularly relevant to this page or gamergate. The outcome might be, but even then, this verges close to gossip for me. That is, of course, just for me. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
At WP:RSN the majority of uninvolved editors argued Volokh was a reliable source. Otherwise agree with Dumuzid, and think we shouldn't be mentioning the restraining order of an otherwise non-notable person unless it receives more coverage. Brustopher (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought use of article subject's birth name was banned from WP, including Talk pages. Whenever someone mentions it, it gets revdeleted. But someone has mentioned it above and it's still there. Does that mean the rule has changed? Are we allowed to mention article subject's birth name now? 1.144.96.209 (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The rule has not changed, the circumstances have changed. Wikipedia regularly redacts private information, and we'd do the same thing if someone posted your real name or mine here. There's not much point in redacting it now that it's been published in the washington post. But I also question why any editor would want or need to mention her real former name on the talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: a correction: Zoe Quinn is her real name. The other one is her former name. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, you're right. Gamaliel (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Name

Is it a pseudonym or a real name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beta Ms Cousin (talk • contribs) 12:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You didn't even take the effort to read one line up from your question here, did you? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"False Allegation Claims"

Welcome back to Wikipedia, @Rikeus: -- we all hope you enjoyed your 2-year vacation and have returned refreshed. While you were away, this page became the center of much controversy, and I believe you'll find it can only be edited by people with at least 500 edits, which you do not seem to have. The point here is that, while some people said Quinn received positive coverage from a journalist with whom she had a relationship, this was a lie. Further, even if it weren't a lie, she would not have done anything wrong, and so she could not be said to be "accused" of anything. Finally, you might want to review the notion of dangling participles! Thanks! MarkBernstein (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


The section on the gamergate controversy contains the sentence "Based on claims in the post Quinn was falsely accused of receiving positive coverage from a journalist she was in a relationship with.". There are two problems with this sentence - firstly, the language is unspecific: Was she falsely accused, because of claims in the article, or did the article claim she was falsely accused? If the former, there should be a comma between "post" and "Quinn".

Secondly, assuming this interpretation is correct, the statement that the accusations were false is unsourced - the sourced telegraph article makes this claim but does not provide any evidence. Therefore, I submit that for the purpose of objectivity the statement be reworded as "Based on claims in the post, Quinn was accused of receiving positive coverage from a journalist she was in a relationship with."

Rikeus (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

the statement that the accusations were false is unsourced. Check the source at the end of the sentence. Says "false accusations". — Strongjam (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with both of you! I added the comma as I think it is both more clear and better style. I also concur with Strongjam insofar as the "false accusations" are found in the cited source. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Crash Override Film

Just placing this here for discussion: ZOE QUINN MEMOIR CRASH OVERRIDE: HOW TO SAVE THE INTERNET FROM ITSELF TO BE MADE INTO A MOVIE. GamerPro64 00:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Bias

This page is heavily biased. For instance: 'In 2014, a blog post by her ex-boyfriend sparked the Gamergate controversy, in which Quinn was subject to widespread harassment.' Furthermore: 'Quinn was one of the targets of Gamergate, with others including Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu.' Not to mention that section is named 'Harassment and Gamergate'. It's clear whoever wrote this is anti-Gamergate, which is fine, but Wikipedia articles are not supposed to take sides. We present the facts without bias. This needs to be fixed ASAP.--Johnny 42 (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

What you have quoted is mostly factual, and doesn't take a side. A blogpost by her ex-boyfriend did spark the Gamergate controversy and she was subject to harassment. However, "widespread" in this context seems like an odd phrasing. I'm changing it to "heavy." The sentence about "widespread recognition of misogyny in gaming" seems odd too and can can probably be reworded (but by someone else, I'm too lazy). Otherwise not really seeing the problem. What would you suggest? Brustopher (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I think "widespread" sounds more normal than "heavy". But as for the accusations of bias, no, the page is not biased. "Whoever wrote this" is actually 222 separate people (minus a couple of bots). Quinn was subject to widespread harassment as a target of Gamergate. That is a fact without bias, and it's substantiated with reliable sources. What on earth could make you think it's untrue? — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 22:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The vast majority of Gamergaters did not harass Quinn, merely criticized her. Sure, some people did harass her, but the article makes it seem as if this was a good vs bad situation, which it was not. Some people harassed her and others just criticized her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny 42 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, given the nature of the "criticism", the distinction seems a bit moot. I think the wording as it stands is probably ok - we don't say that all GamerGate supporters have harassed Quinn, only that the harassment was associated with GamerGate, which is a well supported claim. - Bilby (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Widespread to me seems to imply that it's something everyone online is doing, or that it's common everywhere. Maybe I just understand the word wrong. Brustopher (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
"Heavy harassment" is horrible, however huge our hankering. "Severe" might work. "Extensive" might, too. "Thousands of instances of harassment" would be OK, too. Or, you know, "widespread" isn't that bad. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Brustopher; "widespread" to me would imply that it's coming from several sources. I don't think that's the case here. I am fine with any other of Dr. Bernstein's proposed synonyms. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly likely that the harassment is, in fact, coming from several sources. Look just at edits to this talk page that violated BLP sufficiently as to be revdeled: I believe there are more than a dozen different editors. Now, some may be socks, and some of the revdels might be violations that aren't harassment or that involve other people, but presumably they're not all one source. And that's just one talk page on Wikipedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Some of the comments in this very thread are very close to the line of saying they don't believe she was harassed, which would (if said explicitly) be subject to revdel. But it's plausibly deniable whether trying to gaslight the victim by getting Wikipedia to publicly deny her harassment counts as harassment itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
As usual, I am not expressing myself well. I don't doubt that there were many engaged in the harassment, but it seems to me to come from one ideological core (to the extent gamergate can be considered an "ideology"). "Widespread" carries a connotation for me that disparate sorts of people were involved -- which I do not believe to be the case. But again, this is certainly not a subject on which I have strong feelings. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea how what I've written has been taken this way. I know I'm phrasing it poorly but I'm basically trying to say the same thing Dumuzid is saying. Nonetheless, I can't see how anything I've written can be interpreted as denying harassment.Brustopher (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal Request

I request the removal of this page. While the Gamer-gate Controversy is very famous, Zoë Quinn herself has only one famous game. Therefore, I believe it is completely irrelevant to have an entire article on herself. The article itself is very bias, small in text, and short in general. --Chocolatechip65 (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth perusing WP:AFD. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
She had an article before GG m8. She's a pretty famous dudette in the grand scheme of things. Also consider the following: What if it is you that is very bias and not this article? Didn't think of that did you m8? Huh? Huh? Brustopher (talk)
Why were you so aggressive and uncivil to him? Supergodzilla2090 (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I was? The tone of my comment was meant to kinda jokey. Apologies if it didn't come across that way. Brustopher (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Current pic is not encyclopedic

The current pic (File:Zoe Quinn Car 2014.jpg [5]) is inappropriate for an encyclopedia (because the subject has a goofy expression on her face, and appears to almost be engaged in a cosplay-like portrayal of some sort of admittedly unknown fictional character). It looks like something more fitting for The Zoe Quinn Fan Club, if such a thing existed. While the alternative pic (File:Zoe Quinn - GDC 2014 (cropped).jpg [6]) may be slightly blurry, and not ideally framed, never-the-less presents Ms. Quinn in a normal state, and thus is far more appropriate for the context of an encyclopedia. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

We've already been over this and nothing has changed since then. Given the choice between a blurry, impromptu photo taken from a tilted and unflattering angle, and a slightly better photo specifically provided by the subject for this article, I'm going with the latter, hands down. No, the pose in the replacement photo is not ideal, but wearing unusual makeup is not somehow inappropriate. That's how she has chosen to represent herself, and saying that the blurry unflattering one is a normal state is a judgement call (at best). The old photo is so blurry and oddly lit it's almost unusable, and Quinn has specifically said she disliked it, so restoring it would need strong justification to avoid being a petty-minded BLP violation. If you can find a better photo under a compatible license, great, then maybe it'll be worth further discussion. Grayfell (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I concur. She's a gamer, a game developer, and a target of Gamergate, and it's a striking photo whether cosplay was involved or not. kencf0618 (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Falsely accused

Can't look at the source right now but is there proof the accusations were false? Telegraph tends to have opinion pieces from what I've seen of them and with a name like "the misogynist movement blighting the games industry" it seems like an opinion piece to me. RotubirtnoC (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

We don't do our own investigations. The source says false accused, I've added another one that also says the same just now. — Strongjam (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Strongjam. I've changed the source to the source the cited source used. RotubirtnoC (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I've no idea what you tried to do and have reverted. Maybe try the using the {{cite web}} template in your sandbox first? — Strongjam (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Charges dropped against Eron Gjoni (ex-boyfriend mentioned in article)

Engadget article

Opinion piece from The Volokh Conspiracy about the case written before the charges were dropped

The article as of now is very one-sided against him, and probably falls into WP:BLPCRIME. TussilagoFanfara (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I saw that news as well. The case(s) against the former boyfriend (either in a civil or criminal component) is not mentioned in the article, and I think rightly so. As such, I'm not sure there's any change to be made as a result. I don't quite know where you see a WP:BLPCRIME issue? Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The context it's placed in is quite risqué, in my opinion. It places him in a context of harassment without citing any ground for it. While gamergate was sparked by his original post, clarification would be good. The main gamergate article (500 edits needed there, can't post) is quite harsher, with a accusation of "craft[ing] the post to resonate with members of the gaming community he "knew were passionately predisposed to attacking women in the industry-" that certainly could be considered BLP libel. TussilagoFanfara (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's not a BLP issue if it's strongly sourced. I don't much like the wording in the gamergate article, but the wording here strikes me as pretty solid, both from a reliable source point of view as well as a (secondarily) factual point of view. If you think it can be improved, by all means, take a stab at it. Dumuzid (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I re-added the part you removed, with detail that might not be fit for this article. If you have any objections, it would be better to leave them here instead of my talk page. TussilagoFanfara (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
@TussilagoFanfara: with all due respect, I still don't think the court case belongs in the article. It's not really notable beyond a certain niche and it feels very gossip-y to me. I tend to err on the side of caution when dealing with interpersonal issues (even notable subjects) and just think that this is unnecessary and not an improvement to the article. That said, I'll let it stand and maybe we'll get some input from others (heaven knows I am often wrong!). Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I have removed it again, primarily because it's based on a single source and isn't even an accurate summary of that source. If we're to include a statement about living persons, it should be supported by several high-quality sources (per BLP) and also accurately summarize what those sources say (per NPOV). Woodroar (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
In addition, Breitbart is not a reliable source. Woodroar (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Breitbart was not cited in the revision you removed. What did I not accurately summarize? There was a restraining order and charges against him were dropped. I've re-added it with another source. TussilagoFanfara (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Engadget says nothing about Quinn filing the original restraining order. Neither source says that "all legal charges...were dropped". And neither of your claims include necessary context from the sources. (The amendment about Breitbart was just an FYI.) You have been reverted 5 times at this point, so I would suggest working to gain a consensus. Woodroar (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion or no, I'm kind of shocked at the sloppy reporting here -- most of the reports seem to conflate civil and criminal matters. The matter dropped was not legally related to the restraining order and is not a "lawsuit" brought by Ms. Quinn. I suppose I would say we should wait until we have better-informed sources, but that's really me quibbling with otherwise reliable sources, which I shouldn't be doing. Oh well. Dumuzid (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Two editors did reversions on my edits back-to-back citing WP:UNDUE, which I disagree with. It's not really a viewpoint per se, and there's several news stories about it, two of which I cited. TussilagoFanfara (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

First, my understanding is that "charges" were not "dropped". Restraining orders (like blocks) are preventative; they are intended to prevent the commission of a future crime, and may be granted by a court even though no crime has been committed. There need be no charges. Second, most if not all restraining orders in their nature are temporary; that Quinn no longer argues that the restraining order is necessary may indicate any number of things. The inclusion here is in fact WP:UNDUE and also misleading if it is used to suggest that terroristic harassment was not committed; the existence and extent of the harassment are clearly represented in dozens if not hundreds of impeccable sources. If this continues, I suggest we adjourn these proceedings to Arbitration Enforcement. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
@MarkBernstein:"First, my understanding is that "charges" were not "dropped"." Your understanding isn't relevant if you don't back it up by reliable sources. The Engadget source uses the wording "But now she's dropping harassment charges against the man who essentially started the GamerGate firestorm." NY Times uses similar wording – "Zoe Quinn[...]said she will drop her harassment charges against the ex-boyfriend."
If it is "in fact WP:UNDUE", you should be able to elaborate on why it is, with sources. "and also misleading if it is used to suggest that terroristic harassment was not committed; the existence and extent of the harassment are clearly represented in dozens if not hundreds of impeccable sources" No sources or text about harassment were removed in those edits, which is verifiable by the editing logs. Not only are you not assuming good faith with this statement, you are also using strawman-like tactics. TussilagoFanfara (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
We have hundreds of sources that describe the harassment to which Zoë Quinn was subjected. That is the main story here. Adding WP:NEWS about every individual decision by every individual law-enforcement agency is not necessary, and we must be very careful not to imply that there is any question about the vileness and criminality of the harassment. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I asked you to stop with strawmen arguments, blatantly dishonest claims like these doesn't help anyone here. I have not removed ANY information about harassment, and comparing this to adding "every individual decision by every individual law-enforcement agency" to Wikipedia is ridiculous. TussilagoFanfara (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
TussilagoFanfara, with all due respect, you're not listening. WP:UNDUE is about balancing the text of our articles proportionally according to the content found in reliable sources. Dozens of articles discussing the harrasment are already used as references, and hundreds more have been published, to the point where it would be redundant (and a waste of time) to cite them all. By comparison, very few sources have published articles about the restraining order being filed and dropped, which suggests we should ignore those details for the time being, at least. Editors can't elaborate about UNDUE with nonexistant articles. If you feel that sufficient sources about this do exist, then you need to bring them here so we can discuss them. Woodroar (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Nothing I have written above was dishonest. Nor was anything a straw man. If you believe what you have written, AE and Arbcom are at your disposal. If you are simply echoing the braying hounds on the Wikipedia boards, your prompt apology would be a prudent remedy for this breach of WP:NPA. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Bernstein, this is why I find the sloppy reporting and conflation so annoying. The 'dropping' that happened, according to Ms. Quinn's blog, was of the criminal charges. As such, that would not be her decision (though she had input), but rather the decision of the district attorney. This 'dropping' thus emerges from the same nucleus of operative facts, but is unrelated to the restraining order, as you say. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

As suggested by Woodroar, here's some more sources.

Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend denies her claim that her case against him is over - The Daily Dot

Woman Targeted In 'GamerGate' Harassment Drops Charges - Huffington Post

Woman at the center of Gamergate campaign says she'll drop harassment suit against ex-boyfriend - NY Daily News

Zoe Quinn drops harassment suit against ex - GamePolitics TussilagoFanfara (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

For me, it still doesn't feel as though it belongs. Part of it is WP:NOTNEWS, but part of it is the sheer inchoate nature of this thing: something might have happened, but didn't. Possibly it might belong in the main Gamergate article (though I don't think so), or almost certainly if Mr. Gjoni had his own article (I don't think he's notable per Wikipedia, but I might be wrong). It's not Ms. Quinn's relationship to Mr. Gjoni that makes her notable, and even the 'Zoe Post' mess wouldn't be notable if not for the cultural ripples it engendered. The widespread harassment and cultural tsuris are what is notable, and thus, not all fallout from the relationship belongs on this page, by my lights. The fact that in order to get this "dropped charges" narrative in means we would have to insert a "bringing charges" element is an indicator to me. This is news that is of interest to some, but I don't think it's of encyclopedic interest here. Thanks, though, sincerely! Dumuzid (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Some further googling led me to a statement posted by Eron Gjoni on reddit, which states that some proceedings are still ongoing. I still think it's notable, but it might be better to wait until everything is over before including it in the article. TussilagoFanfara (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Again, this is all original research, and as such, I am not proposing it be included in the article, but the situation as I understand it is this: the original legal proceeding was a protective order granted to Ms. Quinn, which was subsequently the subject of a hearing involving Mr. Gjoni. Subsequently, he appealed the granting of this order. During the course of this appeal, Ms. Quinn voluntarily vacated the order and moved for the appeal to be dismissed as moot. The outcome of that appeal is still pending (and dismissal for mootness entirely possible). At some point after the granting of the protective order, Ms. Quinn either contacted or was contacted by the district attorney in Massachusetts to consider bringing criminal charges. This decision rests entirely with the district attorney. A victim may request that charges be dropped (or brought, for that matter), but they are not the ultimate arbiters. The recent "charges dropped" news is, so far as I can tell, that Ms. Quinn has requested that the district attorney drop the possible criminal charges. But the important thing (to me, anyway) is that these two proceedings, one actual, one contemplated, are completely unrelated from a legal standpoint. Making a request of the district attorney has nothing whatsoever to do with the pending appeal (which is, effectively, being pursued by Mr. Gjoni, not Ms. Quinn). There has never been, to my knowledge, a 'lawsuit' by Ms. Quinn against Mr. Gjoni, and I'll say again I am annoyed that the reporting on this is using very inexact terminology. Again, this is offered just in the spirit of helping to make sense of what's happening, and is entirely my analysis -- thus it could very well be wrong. Thanks! Dumuzid (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
This is a great summary, my understanding of the American legal system is very basic so I cannot comment on the accuracy of it however. Thanks for taking the time to write it. TussilagoFanfara (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Update on the legal case: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/18/appellate-argument-today-as-to-the-order-that-eron-gjoni-not-post-any-further-information-about-zoe-quinn/ JamesG5 (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Author of the ZoePost

An editor attributed the ZoePost to its author, and this was deleted as "gossipy" because the author is a private person. It seems to me that the subject of this article (and the victim of that author) is also a private person. We name her, and the author granted an interview to Boston Magazine in which he took credit for the composition and discussed its creation and purpose in detail. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll also add that I think Ms. Quinn notable while I don't particularly think Mr. Gjoni is. If the consensus is that he should be named, then that's fine by me. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the point in adding his name. It's not going to improve a readers understanding. — Strongjam (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I lean towards not including the name but I don't feel strongly either way. Certainly it is not the case that naming him is defamatory (to him nor to Quinn) or needs to be revdelled, unlike some other attempted changes to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I think his name should be added. He isn't notable but he doesn't need to be. Writing his name is more specific than "an ex-boyfriend", not controversial or defamatory in any sense, and easily sourced. I don't think this discussion would be taking place for any subject other than the touchy area of Gamergate—we'd just include the name of the person relevant to the article's subject without a second thought. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Eron Gjoni has done interview, after interview, after interview... but, now, all of a sudden, he's a private person? Wikipedia has no problem naming a 15[7] but deems it necessary to protect the sophomoric antics of an adult man. I smell a double standard! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 03:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

As the person who added his name, obviously I think he should be named, both because it's always important to be precise when we're able to (it's not just some ex-boyfriend who started this, it's a specific ex-boyfriend and because it feels unfair to talk about the victim but not the abuser by name. It's neither gossipy nor talking about a private person, as he has been rather open in discussing his actions elsewhere. Martin Wisse (talk) 07:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought I should just pop in to say that when I said it felt gossipy and that Mr. Gjoni is a private person, I wasn't speaking to defamation or broader BLP concerns. I more meant that there's really no public information about him absent this stuff. My feeling is simply that it doesn't really add to the article, and, I confess, it seems that to some degree he actually wants the attention, so I suppose it feels like promoting his stance, in a strange way. But again, this is not something I have strong feelings about. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

So... where does anything concerning Eron (or gamergate) not feel gossipy? But to name the victim here without naming her abuser is just wrong. --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 15:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
It's a fair point that this is basically gossip quicksand. But still, to me, the page "feels" better without that name attached. I admit that this is not entirely rational; Mr. Gjoni is named on the Gamergate controversy page and I think rightly so. Someday, perhaps, I'll be able to actually articulate my thinking. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I would agree that naming Gjoni would probably violate BLP, but on the other hand he was the author of the Zoe Post and is part of an ongoing case in court. It's difficult to figure out where one should stand on which bits of information would be useful to add to the article, but I suppose that's something all Wikipedians know, eh? My point would have to be that while we all have varying personal opinions on this topic it would probably be best to discuss them openly and reach a consensus rather than stating reasons over and over and over. Bah, sorry if I'm missing something important or just flew right over my head. I'm still getting used to being an editor I guess. Sethyre (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Sethyre, I don't think any of us really think this is a BLP issue -- even the most heinous facts about someone pass BLP muster if they are strongly sourced. This one is, I think, unimpeachably sourced. For me, as I say, it's more of a stylistic and pragmatic question rather than one of strict policy. We're trying to get some consensus, but I'm afraid stating reasons over and over is sort of what I do on Wikipedia! Thanks for your input. Dumuzid (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Good point. I wasn't addressing that to anyone in particular but I may need to revise what I thought the issue was about. I'm afraid I wasn't able to understand what exactly was the problem, but thank you for taking the time to explain it! Sethyre (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no reason to attack Ms. Quinn personally. You may disagree with her politics, you may not like her game, but to personally attack her, smear her name, broadcast her sex life, and make threats (veiled or otherwise) is completely unacceptable. Something to keep in mind - when you make personal attacks, it does not reflect poorly on Ms. Quinn - rather, it reflects poorly on you as an editor. It needs to stop at once. I don't agree with everything Ms. Quinn does, but never would I smear someone's character due to a disagreement. If you must attack - and I have no idea why so many of you are dead set on attacking - attack the argument, NOT the person. Cavalierman (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Ummmm.... who in this thread is attacking Quinn, personally or otherwise? MarkBernstein (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
If you look at the history of the talk page, I have found the following from a cursory glance:
People posting unflattering photos of Ms. Quinn
People posting her birth name which she insists on keeping private
People calling her a liar
People attacking her character.
I am trying to keep this article encyclopedic in nature, and since no one else is willing to step up to the plate, I figured I would do so (per your suggestion as well). Cavalierman (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I would like to add one more thing: What you people don't seem to understand is that attacking Ms. Quinn does not help any "cause". Rather, it reflects poorly on the person posting the attack. Cavalierman (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia not use facts in multiple articles? Has Wikipedia become opinion based? Freedom uprising (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Harassment associated with Gamergate resulted in widespread recognition of misogyny in gaming

"Harassment associated with Gamergate resulted in widespread recognition of misogyny in gaming" There isn't a widespread recognition of misogyny in gaming. Most people disagree with that statement and thus it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qute (talk • contribs) 14:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It would be both helpful and more persuasive if you could cite to a reliable source for your proposed change to the article. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I think the editor might be raising the point that the text (as a whole) is not a universally acknowledged fact; it also does not appear to be supported by the source referenced. Accordingly, I will remove it pending additional sourcing being found. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I restored the sentence and added another source. The Business Insider source discusses GamerGate-related "incidents of harassment and sexism" which were noted by many industry professionals. This alone should verify the statement. But I also added a Washington Post source discussing how the events of GamerGate led to significant coverage of harassment and sexism in industry and mainstream media. Woodroar (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Respectfully, the Business Insider source does not mention "widespread recognition of misogyny in gaming" or similar, which is the conclusion of the sentence in the article text; it therefore does not verify that statement.
The WAPost blog source does discuss what might be paraphrased as a broader "misogyny in gaming" outside Gamergate:
In truth, the harassment has been going on much longer than that. For Quinn and many women who do what she does, threats and sexual innuendo are par for the course. Sexism in gaming is a long-documented, much-debated but seemingly intractable problem. It’s also the crux of the industry’s biggest ongoing battle being waged on Twitter under the hashtag “#GamerGate.”
... but that source does not connect a "widespread recognition" of this as a result of "harassment associated with Gamergate", which is the conclusion of the sentence in the article text; and "long-documented, much-debated" is not the same as "widespread recognition" - "recognition" is a success statement which is not verified by this source and which we should avoid. The WAPost source is also an opinion piece, and therefore the statement should be attributed - Sarah Kaplan, writing for Washington Post, said that .... And finally, while Gamergate and "sexism in gaming" are obviously related topics, such a broad sweeping statement about an industry and/or hobbyist community is probably not suitable content for this biographical article.
Of course, I may have missed something in either of these sources; if so, please quote the sections of the sources which are believed to verify the article text. Alternatively, additional input from other editors might be sought at WP:RSN; if so, I would appreciate a courtesy ping. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
According to Business Insider, "[m]ore than 2,000 industry professionals" signed an open letter against harassment that is tied to GamerGate events later in the article. Getting 2,000 people in an industry to agree on something often means that it's "widespread". But you can go a few steps further with the Washington Post: The campaign against Quinn, along with similar attacks on feminist video game critic Anita Sarkeesian, got a lot of attention. Gaming sites wrote think pieces about the death of gamer identity. The New Yorker profiled Quinn. “Star Trek” actor Wil Wheaton wrote an angry blog post that said the controversy made him “ashamed” to call himself a gamer. (Those sentences also link to other articles that more directly comment on the harassment and sexism.) That's definitely widespread. I mean, we could write "Harassment associated with Gamergate resulted in recognition of misogyny in gaming among thousands of industry professionals and gaming media and mainstream media and a celebrity". But we're just summarizing here, so "widespread recognition" should be enough. It's not like we're saying "universal recognition" or even characterizing it as "majority" or "most".
Also, the Washington Post article is definitely a news piece. The URL is washingtonpost.com/news/, unlike opinion pieces (an example) which are at washingtonpost.com/opinions. Woodroar (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Respectfully, that's not how WP:V(esp@WP:NEWSBLOG) & WP:RS(esp@WP:NEWSORG) work. We do not determine whether a source is "fact" or "opinion" based on URLs. To suggest that we should is just terrible; we should aspire to better.
Now, considering the open letter: While clearly primarily "in support of diversity", it is also "against harassment", though in a generalized sense, not specifically w.r.t. the article subject.[8] However, "against harassment" is not what the article text in question states - resulted in widespread recognition of misogyny in gaming. We must not, by policy, equivocate "in support of diversity" or "against harassment" with "widespread recognition of misogyny in gaming". [Arguments on the nature of "widespread" and numerical analysis of 2,000 persons in an industry encompassing hundreds of thousands are considered subordinate to our policies on synthesis]
"Widespread recognition" is not a simple summary of these sources - it is an analysis for someone else to make (and for us to attribute to them). Harassment associated with Gamergate resulted in widespread recognition of misogyny in gaming is not a conclusion reached by either of the two sources provided; and adds nothing to a reader's understanding of the subject of this article. I don't have an issue with including something which is pertinent to the article subject, and which is directly supported by reliable sources, or with including the current text if reliable sources can be found to both support it and link it to the subject, but the text "as is" is not supported by the current sources, without performing original research. Of course, WP:RSN remains open. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Specifically, which source makes the claim that Harassment associated with Gamergate resulted in widespread recognition of misogyny in gaming? emphasis added - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Just jumping in for a note of clarity regarding the "blog" status of the Washington Post piece. The "Morning Mix" blog is essentially an aggregator for news stories from various sources, as stated in this article from the Columbia Journalism Review: [9], to wit: "Fred Barbash, a former Post reporter and editor, was hired back to head a team of aggregator-reporters working an overnight shift to jump on stories generated by newsrooms around the world, and present them to the Post’s readers every morning. The blog, called Morning Mix, quickly became the most popular feature on the website." Given that description, it seems obvious to me that stories from the Morning Mix should enjoy a rebuttable presumption that they are actual news rather than opinion. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Respectfully, that's not how WP:V(esp@WP:NEWSBLOG) & WP:RS(esp@WP:NEWSORG) work. Even where a blog is built by aggregating news stories, we don't regard the whole as being "factual". By preference, for sourcing the individual factual information, we would use the aggregated sources, not the aggregate. As a rough analogy from the building industry: even where the bricks might be fact, the mortar is not, and the wall as a whole is not. Of course, WP:RSN remains open. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
By all means, Ryk, go to RSN and tell them how the Washington Post is an unreliable source. It is called a "blog," yes, but it is written by professional reporters overseen by an editor. I'd invite you to reread both the story cited above and WP:NEWSBLOG. Dumuzid (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Discussion opened at: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Statement at Zoë Quinn; cross-posted at WP:BLPN. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Could we find an acceptable compromise at: "Harassment associated with the Gamergate controversy resulted in widespread recognition of harassment in gaming culture" or "... increased media focus on harassment in... or similar? While I would still have concerns that the "resulted" is a conclusion not drawn by the sources, I suggest that this would better cleave to those sources. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
No, I think what we currently have is fairly agreed upon and well supported by the source. There's no need to dilute the language. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Not the most respectful reply, is it? Dumuzid (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Crash Override book and movie?

Is there a reason her upcoming book and that whole movie deal aren't mentioned on this page? Seems like a pretty big omission. Random name (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

While I have heard tell of such things, do you have a reliable source handy? That would be a good place to start! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

NY Mag article

NY Mag is a very reliable source and it reported an accusation. I don't see any reason not to include it. --BurtReynoldsy (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

NYMag is RS, but it seems to be WP:UNDUE and just baseless rumors. Given that this is a WP:BLP, I am more than hesitant to include some seemingly baseless (according to the NYMag source) accusations (WP:BLPGOSSIP). Curious what others think. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
That seems like WP:OR. There is no source stating it's just rumors. NY Mag reports that there is no actual evidence, and I included that. NY Mag didn't state that it was baseless. I also wonder what you mean by that last sentence. Canvassing? --BurtReynoldsy (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Edit: it was brought to my attention that NY Mag does state there is evidence, but only mundane. --BurtReynoldsy (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The entire tone of the article is that the accusations are false and that the accuser is very confused by the situation. Mentioning it would definitely be undue and would require a massive wall of text to properly contextualize. Best left out, by my lights. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
That seems like WP:OR as well. Tone? Whatever do you mean by that? --BurtReynoldsy (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
When I say 'tone,' I mean statements like: "There is no actual evidence any of this is true, and yet Owens, thrust into an internet culture war she knew nothing about coming in, has misinterpreted, in a particularly cringeworthy way, various bits of mundane 'evidence' as implicating Quinn and Harper." For the record, that's not WP:OR. Dumuzid (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, we have an RS on the record stating that there is evidence, even if "mundane." And that misinterpretation is not included in our article. NY Mag wrote about the Twitter "sockpuppetry" before that. We don't mention that but only the company inbox. --BurtReynoldsy (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Why do you think the article uses quotation marks around the word "evidence"? I'd be curious to know. Dumuzid (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Is that the "tone" you mentioned and use as evidence of why an RS stating there is evidence for the accused behavior having taken place isn't included in our article in a neat, fair and minimal Controversy section? I haven't seen any criticism towards the way I portrayed and desccribed the matter. --BurtReynoldsy (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I would say it's part of the "tone" I mentioned. I don't think we're likely to see eye-to-eye here, so count me as opposed to this inclusion, and have a nice evening. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Best left out. Not every 'controversy' need be mentioned. It would be WP:DUE on Candace Owens page, but not here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

We have a very reliable RS stating that there is evidence, even if mundane for the accused behavior. I don't understand what kind of controversy would merit a mention if not something like this. Would the RS have to state: "Yes, she did it." ? --BurtReynoldsy (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Leave it out. The source says There is no actual evidence any of this is true..., and then uses "evidence" in quote marks explaining that it's been misinterpreted. This would need much more context to be worth including. Not worth it. Grayfell (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

It still refers to evidence, thus we have a very reliable RS stating there is evidence. What kind of context do you suggest? I'm all ears. --BurtReynoldsy (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
BurtReynoldsy, Respectfully, I think there may a misreading of "mundane evidence" to mean something more than it does. Mundane is "common, everyday"; it's not evidence of malfeasance. Other than NYMag, on face value, the other sources seem poor; HeatSt is (afaiaa) user generated, without significant editorial control. I think it's better left out (but I also think most "controversy" sections are better left out). However, if you'd like to push for inclusion, I recommend posting at WP:BLPN and/or WP:RSN. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC) amended Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
It still is evidence. The heatst.com citation is from a journalist employed as a content editor by Dow Jones, the parent company of Heatstreet. The website doesn't allow user-generated articles. Many websites have written about the matter and the number of them is very notable. I wish to solve this now by making you understand this is a clear-cut controversy section material for a non-celebrity. --BurtReynoldsy (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not evidence. That's the entire point of the NYMag source. Owens was misinterpreting mundane facts and events as "evidence". Since that source makes it clear this is nonsense, the article shouldn't be used to justify including conspiracy theories about Quinn.
It may not accept user generated content, but Heat Street doesn't appear to be a reliable source. I looked into it when came up recently, and there is no indication of editorial oversight or corrections, or even a single page listing editors or editorial policies that I could find. I did find an email address for story pitches, though. It's a new clickbait site, and has not developed a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" yet. Newscorp isn't above tabloid journalism, so the burden is on them to prove they're reliable. Grayfell (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is. The article also doesn't state what you wrote. You were adding your own interpretation. The evidence was also handled very oddly by the article. It keeps referring to a "lack of understanding of the internet." It doesn't really explain how the evidence provided is misinterpreted.
And concerning Heatstreet, you do the same. There's no "indication"? But you don't provide any of this "indication" to us? That's Donald Trump level of arguing. And any news agency has a channel for tips. For you having pointed that out indicates you're not really familiar with the subject matter. --BurtReynoldsy (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Wow this blew up a bit. I just want to chime in that just because an RS covers it doesn't mean we have to include it. I think that's in WP:DUE somewhere. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
But it seems to be a very notable controversy, being covered by two RS and multiple less than RS? It's on one the first pages of results when you search for the person? Again, what would a controversy have to be like to manage to get mentioned? On other people's articles the standard seems to have been set way lower. Not adding this controversy is contrary to Wikipedia standards. --BurtReynoldsy (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Multiple people think this is not notable and is UNDUE to include an entire section on it. Repeatedly adding it doesn't help. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Middle name

Is this a sufficient source for her middle name Tiberius:

Tweet by Quinn on 24 March 2015:

"there's another zoe quinn in games so maybe I should start using my full name.


zoe tiberius quinn"

She also tweeted a photo that shows a part of her passport.

--Distelfinck (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Either tweet should be fine as a source per WP:BLPSELFPUB — Strongjam (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Birth Name

I've reverted this edit. Per WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPSPS. The Volokh Conspiracy is a group blog and The Washington Post does not have editorial control over it. It's a great reference on legal matters, but it's not usable for claims about living persons, per WP:BLPSPS, emphasis mine, Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. — Strongjam (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there any doubt that the name is correct? The name is used in court documents (here is the court document). It is rather strange to quote policy about SPS for this. If you want to say that the alternate name shouldn't be present because of privacy reasons, then make that argument, but don't bring in red herrings about SPS. In any case, this source will meet the SPS objection. I am ambivalent, tending to support on the argument about BLPPRIVACY, so I am not adding the content. People who are more interested than me can pursue it if they like. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
A court document filed by the SPS. It's not like this is the verdict handed down by the judge. Besides, it doesn't even say that's her birth name. For all we know, everyone involved could be on their tenth name change. Woodroar (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Why the big deal over her name? Another source gives her birth name and says Quinn is now her legal name. This doesn't seem to meet any privacy concerns anymore. --DHeyward (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Normally I'd be a bit on the fence here, but given the amount of abuse she has received over an extended period, and given the attempts to dox her and her family in the past, it seems like the presumption of privacy may be a bit more important here than in some other situations. As her activities are under her legal name of Zoe Quinn, it does seem that there is a risk of harm in further publicising any previous names, and not at lot to gain in terms of useful information. - Bilby (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm along the same lines. I don't think including the former name would be strictly against policy, but in general and in this case specifically, I think it best to err on the side of caution, especially since I don't see any real utility to including the former name. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
No one has said why including her birth name is somehow dangerous or a privacy violation. Here's another one. It's relevant because all the court filings are using that name. Now that she has legally changed it, the former name offers no privacy as its not how she uses it. If Zoe Quinn were a nom de plume, that argument made sense. Now that it's not, her birth name is just historical record rather than a legal name hidden for privacy reasons. All of these news sources changed their use of the name when Quinn made the legal change. we should follow the sources and I suspect their change is due to the change in her legal name, Zoe Quinn, no longer provides her privacy like her birth name did when Quinn was a nom de plume. --DHeyward (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
If you want to say that the alternate name shouldn't be present because of privacy reasons, then make that argument, but don't bring in red herrings about SPS. I mentioned SPS since that was the most straightforward reason for excluding the source. The policy plainly matches how Volokh describes his site. Court documents are also unusable per WP:BLPPRIMARY. It's not about whether it's true or not, but whether it's appropriate to add, there are a lot of true things we can add to biographies that shouldn't be there. Now that we have two usable sources it's more of a question of WP:BLPPRIVACY. I don't think the standard of "widely published by reliable sources" has been met. Especially given the campaign of harassment Quinn has received. — Strongjam (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Bilby and Dumuzid have it right. While some sources have used her birth name, the vast majority do not. There's really no encyclopedic value in including it here - all readers know the subject as Zoe Quinn. Considering the harassment the subject continues to face, we need to be sensitive to the personal information we include here. The claim above that all of a sudden it's not a privacy issue is silly.--Cúchullain t/c 13:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The latest sources such as the Herald and Boston Globe use her birth name because the nature of her birth name fundamentally changed when she legally changed her name. When Quinn was a nom de plume, it guarded her private legal name. That is no longer the case and it can be seen with the change in coverage. There is no longer any private name to protect which is why the latest sources identify it. What privacy did you think is being protected when the article title is her legal name? --DHeyward (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
What encyclopedic purpose is served by spreading a little known name that most sources continue to avoid using? Show your work.--Cúchullain t/c 17:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Being that the case names use her birth name it's arguably a search term just as Eron Gjoni is a search term. Recent sources use it, though and that is a better indication of use by reliable sources. No one is avoiding it anymore because it is not a privacy issue. We routinely publish birth names especially when the birth name was used during the most notable part of their lives. It's no longer a privacy issue and it is no longer SPS. Two reliable sources [10][11] use it in the last 5 months. What is your reasoning for keeping it out when reliable sources feel it is a necessary part of their story? We generally defer to sources, and the most recent are the most credible for the privacy issue since her name legally changed. --DHeyward (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
A handful of sources including the name (let alone 2) out of the dozens written about the subject is no reason to include potentially sensitive personal information. The name has never been widely reported in sources, or by really anyone besides her attackers and their enablers. As the one advocating inserting personal information into the article, the burden is on you to back it up, and you have not done so.Cúchullain t/c 20:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
It's not sensitive. Nor is it personal information. It's an old name. It's not her real name. When that became fact with the name change, the sources changed and the circumstances changed. It is no longer personal information, it's historical. What privacy are do you imagine you are protecting that mainstream press no longer deems private? The burden is on you if you are crying BLP but have not provided any rationale as to what personal information is being protected. I agree that it was personal/private before the name change. Now it is not. There is nothing personal or sensitive about her birth name and you have not provided any rationale that it is other than IDONTLIKEIT. All the arguments using WP:BLPPRIVACY went out the window with "Tiberius." Read the policy and explain how that is more widely published than her birth name and how her full, real name is less of an intrusion than a past, no longer valid name. --DHeyward (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Read the policy and explain how that is more widely published than her birth name and how her full, real name is less of an intrusion than a past, no longer valid name. Oh that's easy. WP:BLPPRIVACY says Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. It's sourced to a statement by Quinn. — Strongjam (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty bizarre to claim that a name is not "personal information". So far a number of editors have weighed in, and only DHeyward advocates for including this information, based on an objectively weak rationale. This doesn't inspire much confidence that it's a wise move. Barring some upswing in consensus, it's probably best to just move on.--Cúchullain t/c 20:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
No one has put forth that her previous name is more personal than her current full name. By contrast, many people that marry into well know families have their non-public birth name published as well as their married name. You're making the claim that her deprecated birth name is more personal than her current full real name. That's what's crazy and current sources do not view it that way. Again, is there anything that supports the assertion that it's personal information that would be covered by BLPPRIVACY? Without a valid concern, why is it an issue? She no longer objects to her full, real name being published. It's kind of bizarre to claim that her previous real and full name is more private than her actual real and full name and it's very clear she has no problem with "First middle Last" name being published. --DHeyward (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I was waiting to hear a reasonable argument against inclusion before commenting but if we're basing this on headcount instead, I'm with DHeyward. Boston Globe and Washington Post satisfy the "widely published by reliable sources" criteria. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Washington Post isn't one of the sources being considered. It's Boston Globe and Sydney Morning Herald. — Strongjam (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
LOL. A handful of sources - or 2- out of dozens is not "widely published". Especially considering that we're talking about little known and encyclopedically unimportant personal info about a doxxing victim. Without a much better argument, this is a no go.--Cúchullain t/c 23:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Re: Strongjam: okay, three sources then. The Volokh Conspiracy (Washington Post) is widely publicized and reliable (per expert opinion.) I see arguments to exclude it Volokh in discussions above but it's hard to WP:AGF when a legal expert read by supreme court justices doesn't can't pass muster in an article sourced to every ditz with a gaming column. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
That's not what WP:AGF refers to.--Cúchullain t/c 23:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
First off, reliability is contextual, Volokh is a reliable source for legal matters, that doesn't make him a reliable source for everything. Also, as explained above, The Volokh Conspiracy is not usable for biographies per WP:BLPSPS, it's explicitly not under Washington Post editorial review. His expertise is not relevant here. — Strongjam (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I see no attempt to use Volokh for comment on the person only the case, and there are few better sources for legal comment. That this case is contained within a BLP is incidental. None of this is directly relevant to the discussion: a headcount was requested, I obliged. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I see no attempt to use Volokh for comment on the person only the case Really? Here's one instance, here's another. As for including it, I see no benefit for the reader. I don't think the "widely reported" standard has been met, and the potential for harm to a victim of harassment and her family is real. (See also the essay WP:HARM). — Strongjam (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
This is tedious and I'm assuming endless, I see why these articles are in the state they're in. Good luck Mr/Ms Heyward! James J. Lambden (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The argument about WP:RS is, I hope, easily seen to be not applicable. About WP:BLPPRIVACY, it is very confusingly worded. Is someone worried about identity theft here? Has Quinn objected to using the name somewhere? Names appearing in court documents and newspapers are public information, so the name is not "private information based on primary sources". That said, I have seen another case like this where people kept such information out, and even redacted the name, though the individual involved was much less of a public figure than Quinn. I even asked the Ombudsman Committee to investigate and they sided with redaction. I thought the reasoning was bogus, but apparently people simply make up rules in this area whether or not they makes sense. I don't think much is gained or lost by the mention of the name, and one should keep in mind WP:HARM, so whatever. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

In cases where there's no reason to think some little-reported piece of information is important for readers to get an accurate picture, as well as reason to think that publicizing that information may bring the "possibility of harm to living subjects", it's better to err on the side of caution.--Cúchullain t/c 05:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Like "Tiberius?" It's clear that Quinn has decided that using her real name as her public name is okay. It's ludicrous to think her current full, legal name poses less harm than her previous legal legal name. "Zoe Quinn" has always been the object of outing and doxing and that is no longer an issue as it's her public persona. Her previous legal name is a valid search term published in reliable sources after she stopped using a stage name to protect it. It no longer needs protection and she has "self-published" it in legal documents and it is now referenced in reliable sources for completeness because it is no longer a privacy concern. Please give her credit that she made her choice to use her legal name as her public name and stop patronizing her as if she didn't understand it. --DHeyward (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Query for you, DHeyward. If Ms. Quinn were to publicly proclaim "I wish my former name forgotten and that it never be used again," would that change your analysis? Dumuzid (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
she has "self-published" it in legal documents This makes no sense. That someone has filed court documents under their own name does not mean they've "self-published" their name. Court documents contain all kinds of information that would not be suitable for an encyclopedia. Also, it is a non-sequitur that if she is fine with her current name being public that she is fine with her previous name being public. — Strongjam (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: It would depend on the circumstances of why such a request were made. I presume everyone that changes their name wants their new name to be used but that isn't a reason for why we don't document it if it was significant. Cassius Clay obviously wanted to be known as his legal name when he changed it to Muhammad Ali but we still have Cassius Clay and Cassius X in the article. @Strongjam: Of course a court document is self-published - it's even under oath. We have rules about primary sourcing from such self-published documents and it has to do with privacy. No one doubts that it was Quinn that filed the court documents and that she did so willingly in public court. That's a self-published primary source but we have rules against using that kind of primary, self-published source - just as we have rules that allow it in certain circumstances. It's the argument that "Tiberius" is okay to publish with scant secondary sourcing even though it provides the reader with her full name (no one seems to even be proposing we use her middle name from her birth certificate). Harm, as stated in the privacy policy explicitly mentions using real full name. This is like Batman making an announcement that he's changing his name from "Bruce Wayne" to "Batman" and titling everything in the name "Batman" and declaring "Bruce Wayne" as gone. Meanwhile Wikipedia posts every trivial thing about Batman frets about what's going to happen if we even mention Bruce Wayne. The harm of doxing was exposing the real-life identity (i.e. her birth name before she changed names). That harm is gone as her real life identity is Zoe Quinn and she connected it to her birth name when she changed it. There is much larger harm by narrowing her down to "Zoe Tiberius Quinn" than there is to tying her to an unused birth name that she has already tied to herself and legally discarded. She has chosen to merge Zoe Quinn into her real life which changed the equation from "private stage name" to "formerly known as." Had she kept her birth name and adopted a different stage name, the argument is completely different (and since she has other stage names, it's pretty clear that we don't tie them to anything). Her birth name is relevant precisely because it is on all the documents regarding Gjoni just as Cassius Clay is relevant because that name was used in Ali's younger fights. --DHeyward (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
just a quick passing point - in my case, I don't see the primary risk of harm being that to Quinn, because, sadly, that will happen whatever the name she might use. My concern is the risk of harm to family members and others identified through the use of Quinn's birth name. But that's just me. - Bilby (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Cassius Clay isn't remotely comparable. Unlike that, Zoe Quinn's birth name has never been widely reported throughout her period of notability. It's frankly ridiculous to claim that there is "larger harm" in referring to Quinn by her current name. You're grasping at straws.
Bilby: excellent point. Another compelling reason to err on the side of caution here.--Cúchullain t/c 04:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I find it slightly odd that this article and other gamergate related articles can easily be referenced with twitter posts while reliable thrid party sources are frowned upon. Beatitudinem (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, I can speak only for myself, but I'm not frowning on any reliable sources! And I think only one out of thirty one citations here is a twitter source? That one seems to me to be fine under WP:BLPSELFPUB, as discussed above. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe that user:Strongjam have some involvement with Gamergate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satrain18 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

That's nice, but beyond my work here on Wikipedia I've had no involved with Gamergate. — Strongjam (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm convinced. Sorry, Strongjam, but I believe there's no choice but to ban you from Wikipedia, the internet, and human civilization for life. I trust you'll find constructive uses for your time (BUT NOT EDITING GAMERGATE ARTICLES, of course). Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

There are other sources that do use her birth name; not just the source in question. The Boston Globe uses it [12], as does The Syndey Morning Herald [13]. The first is a news story, not an editorial; the second is listed as "analysis" which may or may not be considered an editorial. UncleThursday (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Those are the same 2 sources discussed above.--Cúchullain t/c 17:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Apologies, then. I'm getting over pneumonia and a week long stay at the hospital for it, so I hadn't read every post. Even newer talking points seemed to be discussing the original WAPO blog post. UncleThursday (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

activist label

My gamergate topic ban ended ten months ago so I thought I would dip my toe here in a conservative way.

I would like to ask opinions on if we should call her an activist in the lede and include appropriate activism categories.

This article links to her Unburnt Witch site and http://www.unburntwitch.com/about.html states:

Zoë Quinn is an award-winning writer, comedian, game developer, and activist living in Los Angeles

Would we need a newspaper to use the term to verify it or is her choice to call herself that enough? It seems like it should at least be enough to justify "self-described activist" but I don't see anyone disagreeing with her so it seems uncontroversial to accept this term as a descriptor. Ranze (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

What exactly are you proposing? You don't appear (to me) to have described either a clear problem or a clear solution. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Ranze now has a three-monh block, so cannot answer here for some time --Distelfinck (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Problem solved? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Birth Name repris

I don't understand. THAT'S her name, why won't Wikipedia allow factual information? - Scottwindcrest (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

See the section right above this. JudgeRM (talk to me) 05:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The sources we have that source this name (such as they are; see above discussion) also say that she legally changed her name. So it is not now her name, and should definitely not be included as if it is. See WP:NAMECHANGES. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, if she did change her name I should be able to put "born Chelsea Van Valkenburg" just as every other page with a "born" and a stage name or new legal name. For example, Teller, even though he changed his named legally, still has "Teller (born Raymond Joseph Teller)" on his page. This is simple factual information, and while I am aware of the sensitivity it's still true and should not be treated differently than our other pages, IMO. - Scottwindcrest (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Not happening. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
But why? I agree with Scottwindcrest's conclusion. Most, if not all people on Wikipedia who have changed their name are listed under first, their current name, then the name that was given to them at birth. The Average Gamer (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Because neither the subject nor reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy have reported it. So we defer to an assumption of privacy for living persons as our policies require. Woodroar (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
When did the Boston Globe cease to be reliable, third party source? [14]. --DHeyward (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
That source doesn't say it was her birth name. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
It does say that she was formerly known as Chelsea Van Valkenburg. I find it strange that the Muhammad Ali article names Cassius Clay as his previous name (even when Ali was still alive), but a well cited name change on the Quinn article remains impossible. R00b07 (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
We don't include personal information on BLPs unless it's widely reported in reliable sources. Ali's names were widely published (both at the time and afterwards) as were his name changes. It helped that he became the heavyweight champion as Cassius Clay (Jr.), changed his name to Cassius X, and then to Muhammad Ali after converting, all of which became part of his story as reported by journalists. If Quinn had become famous or notable while using any other name, perhaps more than a source or two would deem that worthy of mentioning. But they don't, so we don't. Woodroar (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
So, three sources or more are needed now? R00b07 (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that's the idea, simply that discretion is sometimes the better part of valor. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand the discretion that is needed here. What exactly are we being cautious about? Her name was reported by the Boston Globe. If this was any other article, it would be placed in the article and cited. For whatever reason, we are dancing around this. Also, somehow Quinn's personal Tumblr blog is a good enough source to rewrite all pronouns in the article, in a manner that ignores proper grammar, but the Boston Globe isn't a good enough source to cite her original name. Go Figure. Thanks. R00b07 (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I don't believe it would be "wrong" to include the name. I just think it's a proper use of discretion in this instance, given the subject's preferences and a history of harassment. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:BIRTHNAME - If Quinn was notable before the name change, then include it. If not, exclude. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I took a gander at the Manual of Style you linked and I don't see where it says to not include name changes if they weren't notable before the name change. If anything, I see the opposite (William Jefferson Blythe III was not notable before William/Bill Clinton). "In some cases, subjects have legally changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well". The only exception I see where it says not to include a name change before notability is for a transgender person who was not notable before the name change. (Example:Laverne Cox). If you can give me a direct quote to back up your point, it would be much appreciated. R00b07 (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@R00b07: See the bottom of the section below. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: Okay, I looked. Can you be more specific with your point? R00b07 (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Appears Quinn self-identifies as not cisgender (and thus is transgender). BIRTHNAME applies. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for being more clear. I'm inclined to agree now. R00b07 (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Long Zoe Quinn NYMag article

Probably worth including stuff here at Zoe's article more than GGC. http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/07/zoe-quinn-surviving-gamergate.html -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Pronouns

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.

https://thezoequinn.tumblr.com/post/155785701663/a-gender

--ChiveFungi (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

So Quinn says all of those three prounouns are fine. As using "they" as Quinn's pronoun is the one that makes the text the hardest to read, I suggest we use "he" or "she" (we could throw a dice) --Distelfinck (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Quinn says all the pronouns are fine, but that "they" is the 'accurate' choice. I don't think it's a big deal, but I would go with "they." Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Quinn's "if you just want to be accurate" reads like "if you want to be a party pooper" to me. I think we can read many things into her vague comments. Do we really want to use a pronoun different from the one Quinn herself uses? Her website uses "she". I'm not aware of any instance where she used "they" for herself --Distelfinck (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The post where the quote originates strikes me as pretty straightforward, but I have no special insight. As I say, I'd be in favor of sticking with "they," but I will certainly abide by a decision of the great and good of Wikipedia. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
According to MOS:GENDERID, Wikipedia uses the "latest expressed gender self-identification" , so any content on their website written before this Tumblr post is irrelevant. If Wikipedia cares about accuracy then I don't see how we can ignore the subject telling us what pronoun is accurate. --ChiveFungi (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
"Accurate" is not the same as "preferred." To be accurate, my name is "Nathaniel", but I prefer to be called "Nat". --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
This is 100% true, but as pointed out, MOS:GENDERID essentially says that in this instance we go with preference. Thanks.

You might want to explain this bizarre use of they in the article, because it looks like it's been written by a child and/or vandalised as is. Not to mention difficult to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwaway45 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Throwaway45: Perhaps you'd prefer Simple Wiki if you have trouble reading this version of Wikipedia.

PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

We prefer "us'd", not you'd
I think what Throwaway is trying to say is that we may want to include in the article, in a prominent place, an explanation that Quinn prefers the pronoun "they", because the use being put here is not standard usage (even those arguing for the singular "they" are generally arguing for its usage where there is not a specified named individual, replacing "he" as the generic, rather than for use where the individual is fully specified.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)e

After the protest at UC Berkeley, it's likely lot of readers will take the wikilinks journey I did from Milo Yiannopoulos to Gamergate to this page. We need an article the follows basic English grammar and wikipedia's style guidelines. [15]. The current article innovates in the English language which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. See [16]. The views on the English language of the subject are irrelevant to the style in which the article is written. Veej (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

"It's increasingly common in current English and is now widely accepted both in speech and in writing." Excellent. So we're all in agreement that singular they is acceptable. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
If singular "they" was good enough for Shakespeare, I think it's good enough for Wikipedia! Dumuzid (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The difference is that we are not Shakespeare, or in Shakespeare's time. Grammar rules have changed quite often since the 1500s, and every grammar book I read growing up had they as a third person plural pronoun. I'm not against a singular they entirely, as it has it's appropriate uses (Ex: Somebody left their umbrella in the office. Would they please collect it?). However, sentences like "Quinn also has a magnetic implant in their left ring finger" sound absolutely ridiculous when spoken out loud. I believe that a rewrite of portions of the article, using as little pronouns as possible, is the best solution to this problem. R00b07 (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Quinn isn't offended by "she." If it doesn't offend her, keep "she." There are lots of interviews in many reliable sourse for "she" vs. some tumblr blog. --DHeyward (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, sure, but I think MOS:GENDERID should apply. And there we are told "Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources." Hence, per our Manual of Style, I would say keep "they." Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
And also includes how they present themselves. She undoubtedly presents herself as female. She is not offended by that pronoun so why complicate the obvious with the obtuse? There is no indication of gender ambiguity or identity in reliable sources. There is a big difference between sayin she supports transgender rights vs. identifying as transgender. --DHeyward (talk)
"She presents herself as female." Well, that's just like, your opinion, man. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not my opinion. Quinn says she presents herself as female. So do all the reliable sources that use pronouns. Her blog says she doesn't always think of herself in any specific way and sometimes when she views herself, the image is more female than she feels. She didn't stop presenting herself as female, just noted the incongruity. It's no reason to change pronouns, though, if they do not offend. Unless you want to rip out all her comments and coverage as a "female game developer" and mansplain why her views no longer are from the perspective of a female game developer, it's more accurate to cover gender ambiguity and keep the pronouns feminine. Her notability stems from perceptions of misogyny and slut-shaming and turning her bio into an androgynous mess damages and distorts what she said, man. --DHeyward (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I suppose the reference is lost on you. You should watch The Big Lebowski, it might mellow you out. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This seems especially apt since it could be said that we are debating preferred nomenclature. Dumuzid (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
DHeyward, the pronoun issue is something they have talked about themself, and their blog is a reliable source for limited information about personal issues. I actually agree that it's a bit obtuse and leads to somewhat inelegant English, but I don't think either of those is a reason to override the subject's wishes. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Rather inappropriate and off topic EvergreenFir (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If Zoe Quinn is not a woman, how can she be the victim of "misogyny"? Misogyny is, by definition, the hatred of women.AliceIngvild94 (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I quite agree about the definition of misogyny, but to me, hatred resides in the heart of the hater, rather than in the existence of the hated. Thus, anyone perceived as a woman might be the victim of misogyny. Had someone wandered on to the set of "Some Like It Hot" and punched Jack Lemmon in the head because said someone mistook him for a woman, then Jack Lemmon would be the victim of a misogynistic attack, despite little to no confusion about his gender identity. Just the way I see it! Dumuzid (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

User:DHeyward said in an edit summary: "Not okay to imply Gjoni as in anything but hetero." This article is not implying Gjoni is non-heterosexual, you are inferring it. And if the article was all correct and cited, and it did suggest he wasn't heterosexual, there would be nothing wrong with that, because there's nothing wrong with not being heterosexual. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have to say, this line of reasoning strikes me as unconvincing. No one disputes that there was a relationship, and no one seriously disputes the subject's pronoun preferences (though that is not dispositive of what Wikipedia should use). How you wish to describe those facts is a different question. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


There is nothing wrong with being female or male either so it's rather incredulous that a "she" is unacceptable. All the reliable sources use feminine pronouns for Quinn. Quinn identified as female during the notable portions of her life. Zoe is feminine. "Ms. Zoe Quinn" on her cardboard signs at talks and the U.N. is feminine. She presents in the Boston Globe article in a dress and feminine clothing. But to the point: Quinn isn't offended by feminine pronouns. The reliable sources portray all her notable relationships as heterosexual where she is female and her partner is male. Her notability is in a narrow period where we even limit discussion of her name. Her blogged gender as a plural "they" is all beyond the time where she is covered in reliable sources. Given the complexity of multiple partners, misogyny and harassment, pronouns referring to Quinn should be feminine and singular. It is not okay to imply her partners were poly or homosexual or that she was involved with multiple people in a poor attempt to make "they" seem singular. The purpose of MOS:GENDERID isn't to make the subject look schizophrenic nor is its purpose to add ambiguity to other persons sexual preference. Her latest revelation is best treated as a standalone paragraph. --DHeyward (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think "she" is unacceptable. I do think that given MOS:GENDERID's instruction 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's most common in reliable sources" we should go with "their." I see no confusion regarding any of her partners' sexual orientation or activities. With all due respect, this is thin gruel indeed. Dumuzid (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Credit where credit is due -- I think Strongjam's solution is an elegant way to fix the perceived problem. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
DHeyward's arguments are obviously not convincing to most other participants in the discussion. The discussion isn't going anywhere; it's time to either escalate dispute resolution, or move on to other things.--Cúchullain t/c 19:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Someone may want to put a tag or note at the top of the talk page or article page about why the article uses "they" as a pronoun as opposed to he or she. Or perhaps in the FAQ. I must admit it was quite confusing to me as someone unfamiliar with the subject until I came to this talk page and read it through. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, I have just noticed the footnote after the first usage of "they" where it is written that Quinn is not a girl or woman, per their Tumblr page. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Some of you folks need to watch "Rufus Xavier Sarsaparilla" in the old "Grammar Rock" series. Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)theBaron0530
It sounds like the most recent preference is "they", so that's what we should use. Use of singular they is certainly not a Wikipedia innovation (or even an innovation at all) as some other folks have suggested, so this shouldn't even be controversial. Kaldari (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
While it's not that important I disagree. Quinn clearly states no preference. The most recent self-designation I can see is the front page of her Unburnt Witch site, which uses "she". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC).

Quinn is currently (April 28, 2017), referring to herself as "she" on her own home page:

http://www.unburntwitch.com/about.html

Doesn't that trump the tumblr post and kinda end the story, at least for now? If the subject herself does not go out of her way to replace her own pronouns, why should an encyclopedia? The article is currently bending over backwards to replace most pronouns with Quinn, resulting in a Quinn echo. "They" is also used here and there, but pronouns generally seem to be avoided.

--Jcr13 (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how this should be handled, but completely avoiding the use of any pronoun at all makes the writing much more confusing than the use of a singular they. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 23:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I have to say, after reading her own homepage (still says "she" as of Jun 29 2017), I'm with Jcr13 on this particular issue. "They" and the repeated use of "Quinn" makes the article confusing and more difficult to read, and there's really no good reason to continue it in light of the fact that Quinn's own page uses "she" and her tumblr post itself states she doesn't care what pronoun is used. I think it's completely WP:OR to say that she "prefers" "they", as that's not explicitly stated at all. In summary, I would support going back to the use of "she" on this article. Rockypedia (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm starting to think this way too. While Ms. Quinn certainly voiced the preference for "they" at one time, it doesn't seem as though it still obtains. Barring some new statement or the like, I'd say it's fair to go back to the expected pronouns. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The about page was written on or before January 2016 (archive.org link). The "A Gender" post was posted almost a year later. Wikipedia goes by "latest expressed gender self-identification". Just because they don't care if people use the wrong pronouns, doesn't mean we should ignore the part where they explicitly say which pronouns are correct. We go by "gender self-identification" not "any pronoun that doesn't offend the subject". --ChiveFungi (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree. If someone expresses a preference, then that's what we should use. Whether Quinn is consistent really shouldn't matter to us. Besides, there are plenty of cases where people refer to themselves using controversial/objectionable/insulting/what-have-you terms, but that doesn't give us leave to use those same terms in Wikipedia's voice. Woodroar (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
My concern is that we've made the article confusing and unreadable based on an almost offhand flippant remark in a tumblr post: "I guess if you just want to be accurate go for “they” but I won’t be offended by any." That hardly seems like a solid endorsement of the editing that's been done here. Rockypedia (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Just jumping in here because I read the article just now and...was very confused by the pronoun usage. From reading above, this happens quite a bit, and is a very fixable thing. I totally get why the balance of pros/cons is justified when the subject of the article has a very obvious PGP and the source material and the subject's sources all have a consensus. Then MOS:GENDERID is very easy to follow and uncontroversial, and the singular they can be the obvious choice...But right now this is not the case for Zoë Quinn. What we're doing here is using Wikipedia as a place to take an activist stand about PGPs expressed once in a blog post a while ago and then barely followed. Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of activism and interpretation. If one is reading the MOS:GENDERID to the intent of the law, it becomes clear the most recently utilized and expressed pronoun is the one we should be using. And the subject of the article, Ms. Quinn, is referred to as "she" fairly regularly in her own promotional/publisher material. So we should refer to her that way as well. If anyone vehemently disagrees, we can do a consensus vote or escalate. But if no one disagreees, I'll happily change the article myself. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yet "business boy" is the most recent gendered term I could find on social media, which could be serious or totally flippant. Gender is complicated and we don't know the particulars, nor do we need to. Quinn said that the accurate pronounce is "they" so we should use that per our policies. Woodroar (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Gender is complicated, and it's our job as editors to sort out how it should be displayed on BLP pages. Just because it's controversial and hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. It's difficult because people rarely use their own pronouns when speaking in the first person. So In my personal opinion about this messy topic, I think relying on material directly published from Quinn's book agents and publishers is the closest we have to her consented gender pronoun as of now. So that would be "she/her/hers." "Business boy" is not a PGP, and "boys" can prefer she/her/hers or they/their/theirs. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Quinn's blog post we are basing the pronoun on now seems to have been deleted --Distelfinck (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleted or not, it's still the "latest expressed gender self-identification" so I don't think this changes anything. Here's the Wayback link: https://web.archive.org/web/20170402213912/https://thezoequinn.tumblr.com/post/155785701663/a-gender --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
"Deleted or not"...This is tunnel vision. When someone deletes a blog post, I don't think continuing to call it an "expression of their wishes" is correct. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Her Crash Override book just came out 11 days ago, and she's using the pronoun "she" in all the promotional materials surrounding it. I think we can finally lay this to rest. Example: [17] We're now basing this solely on a deleted tumblr post, and not on the latest materials released by the subject herself? Surely she had full control over the wording that accompanied her own book. Jcr13 (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Massachusetts Court of Appeal and original name

There is a clear consensus against including Quinn's original name in the article and additions of it to any page on Wikipedia, including this one, will be reverted and revision deleted unless and until such time as this consensus changes (which it will not in the short term). Discussion of the BLP policy is off-topic for this page, take that to WP:BLPN if you disagree with its application in this instance. Thryduulf (talk) 09:14, 23 August 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.

I've seen a lot of arguments that Volokh is not a reliable source due to being an opinion writer.<redacted> now states what Zoe Quinn's original name is. There is now nearly no possible justifiable reason to redact that Zoe Quinn used to be called <redacted>, unless, of course, one disputes that the Massachusetts Court of Appeal is a reliable source. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's another source not in PDF.<link redacted> This is an official legal record that states what her name formerly was. If nobody disputes this in the next few days, I'll make the necessary changes and include it in the article. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, we cannot use official court records as a source for personal information. - Bilby (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
As I stated last time this came up, personally, I don't believe it would be "wrong" to include the name. I just think it's a proper use of discretion in this instance, given the subject's preferences and a history of harassment. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
More to the point, there doesn't seem to be a good reason to affirmatively include this information other than that "we can." I've yet to see an actual argument made as to what substance including her former name would add to our understanding of her. The argument that "we can do something, therefore we should do it," is akin to arguing that something is not literally illegal to express. There's a lot of stuff we could include, but reliable sources don't tend to include it, so neither should we (IMO). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I don't see what the point of including her birth name in the article is other than to facilitate further harassment. She has never been notable under that name, and given that she is not a prominent public figure, she should be entitled to some degree of privacy, per WP:BLP. Kaldari (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree with above points. Birth name should stay out. Rockypedia (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I've redacted the name and link to the name above, as there is no reason for Wikipedia to publicise it. You can discuss whether it should be included or not without needing to emblazon it everywhere you can. Unless and until there is consensus to include it, please do not reintroduce it to this or any other page. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: What link have you redacted? Just the PDF? The court case that includes the names is still present. It is is also present in the links I have posted below. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Secondary sources include the name if the problem is just using legal documents. <links removed> --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The problem is not simply the sourcing. The subject of the article was never notable under that name and has been the subject of harassment. I, for one, believe that this is an easy call--that is, we're leaving out a piece of non-notable information, and one that might (in theory, anyway) conceivably lead to future harassment. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
That is a reasonable reason to leave out the information. I mentioned the secondary sources as WP:BLPPRIMARY was mentioned above. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: I've removed your links as well. The problem is that they display the name, not the nature of the sources. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Anyone reintroducing those or other links that mention the name, without having got consensus for inclusion first, are liable to be blocked for disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: I can understand the removal of my links, but why have you not redacted the court case link? The name is present on the first page in the footnotes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Human error, now removed also. Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
It's not contentious and it's not harassment to include an undisputed fact on a talk page. It's a fact what her name is, and "potential harassment" is not a good enough reason to censor that information from a talk page, considering that no evidence of said harassment from the use of her name has been shown. Here's Volokh and his amicus brief being cited in a major secondary source, by the way. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 18:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
BLP policy applies to all Wikipedia pages, including talk pages, but that's not exactly why I am in favor of leaving it out. I see lots of potential downsides, but none up. With regards to borderline cases of privacy, I like to default in favor of keeping things private. But I'm wrong a lot, or so people tell me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
You are not the only one who holds such a view. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@Chess: your claim that the information you want to include is "what her name is" makes it hard to take your position in good faith. Her name is Zoë Quinn, and that is what we are calling her. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Potential harassment is very much a good enough reason to not include information on a Wikipedia page - read the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. This policy applies to all pages on Wikipedia and this is non-negotiable. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Unless anyone presents a good reason (or any reason at all besides "we can") for including Quinn's former name in her biographical article — that is, what does it add to our encyclopedic understanding of her? — I suggest this thread be closed as unproductive. There is very clearly no consensus to include her former name. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
It's harassment that has not been shown to exist as a result of her former name. I am in favor of free and open discussion, and while there may not be consensus to include her name in the article itself, the wholesale censoring of any links or mention of her former name on the talk page isn't very justifiable, considering that many sources that may discuss the ongoing court case between Gjoni and Quinn may mention her name. User:Thryduulf has mentioned that any link that states her former name being posted would make that editor liable to be blocked, which means that the Volokh Conspiracy articles above should be removed, and the Boston Globe article on the case would also be redacted. Would it be preferable not to use her name when it is not needed? Yes, sure, there's consensus for that. But I don't think there is any blanket consensus to adopt a "she-who-shall-not-be-named" policy when the name either would make sense to be used in context, or is mentioned in an outside source that would otherwise be allowed to link. Also, @David Eppstein:, I'd prefer if you didn't make unsupported implications that I might not be acting in good faith. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 23:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
In regards to harassment as a result of her former name, her family were tracked down and received abuse - in particular her father, who received threatening calls and abuse over email [18]. - Bilby (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
The article does not say that the harassment was caused as "a result of her former name". It says that harassment was after the publication of the Zoe Post, which did not use her original name. Do you seriously think that online mobs can't do a Google search for the Boston Globe or Washington Post?

Again, I am fine with the WP article not mentioning her original name: I can see the argument that there's little upside and a fair bit of downside. However, the wildly inappropriate application of BLP policy to revdel links and threatening blocks is wrong. Talk pages of BLP pages are not [19] in Google (however archives seem to be, because they don't contain the BLP template, which includes the noindex template). To think that some online troll would try to read Wikipedia talk pages to find links which they could have anyway found out using a thousand different methods (including a simple Google search) is to strain credibility. The measure is ham-handed, useless and arbitrary. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how people tracked down her family without knowing her original name, but it seems unlikely that they found a different method. At any rate, I'm just responding to the question regarding whether or not there was harassment as a result of knowing her birth name, as opposed to the name she now uses. The revdel issue is a different matter. - Bilby (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Chess: Read more carefully. I didn't say that you weren't acting in good faith. I said that the way you wrote things is problematic, because that phrasing makes your good faith less apparent. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia. However, one can disagree in which cases BLP applies, and to what extent. One can argue that due to, say WP:HARM, Quinn's name should not be listed in the article. But citing a Boston Globe article on the talk page is grounds for blocking now? This is the most absurd misapplication of BLP policy that I've seen lately. Since I had myself linked to the Globe article and the court document in the section above (which are all unredacted, by the way) perhaps I should be blocked too? This is absolutely ridiculous.

BLP allows redactions without consensus and revdeling stuff hinders talk page discussion. For precisely these reasons, BLPs are meant to apply in unambigous cases, with little chance of dissent. Here is the applicable sentence from WP:REVDEL: Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it should not be removed.. Well, count me in the dissent category. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I have good-faith reverted the closing of this section. I would like to get clarity on this matter here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Closing was appropriate. This is a waste of time which cannot and should not lead to any changes to the article. Redacting information which is of no use in improving the article but has repeatedly been used as a tool of harassment is common-sense. Move on, please. Grayfell (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
This is not a general discussion forum about the article subject. If someone is going to propose adding Quinn's previous name to this article, they should make a formal proposal and, likely, an RFC, because there is clearly not a consensus for any such addition at this time. If someone isn't going to make such a proposal, there is no reason to continue to discuss this matter because it would have nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion is not about the article subject. The discussion is about the application of the BLP policy to revdel stuff on the page. This is not the first time this has happened (I have seen people blocked over similar matters before). Since I did the same thing a few months ago, which is apparently now a blockable offence based on an arbitrary reading of the policy, I would like to get clarity on the matter. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Kingsindian, I understand both your point of view and desire for clarity, but I do think at this point that it seems like something that might be more suited to the talk page over at WP:BLPN, perhaps? Just a thought. I certainly won't be heaping any opprobrium should you continue here. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
If no one is going to propose adding the name, there is no reason for it to be mentioned here at all and there is no reason not to revdel it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
This comment is so absurd that I don't know what to say. If thing X isn't included in the article, then everything having anything to do with X should be all revdeled, and even links from mainstream newspapers mentioning X should be revdeled, and people who add such links should be blocked? Perhaps we can start with blocking everyone who commented on this page, because I doubt anyone here would survive such a standard. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Years of sustained harassment, including death threats to this woman's family, should not be ignored. This isn't "X" as some abstraction, this is information which actively makes harassment easier. There isn't even a small benefit to Wikipedia. There is no valid reason to keep this. Grayfell (talk) 03:17, 23 August 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.

Archiving of BLP talk pages

The BLP template includes the NOINDEX template. However, the archives of BLP talk pages (including this one), don't contain the BLP header, and thus are indexable. Someone should fix the bot so that there is a BLP template on the archives as well. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the documentation, and it seems that this issue might be fixed with the "archiveheader" parameter in the bot header. Someone who is more conversant than me with the syntax should do it. I'll get to it when I have the time, if nobody else does. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done. I've manually updated the archives already as well. Probably should be brought up as an enhancement for the bot to add NOINDEX to archived pages if the source page has it. — Strongjam (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I added it to the FAQ and the two AfD's of this page as well. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

2016 photo

First: File:Zoe Quinn Car 2014.jpg
Second: File:Zoe Quinn at GDC 2016 (25777166301) (cropped).jpg
  • [20] @Rockypedia, that the 2016 image is more encyclopedic than the 2014 car image seems to me to be uncontroversial—it's current, clearer, and was taken during a professional speaking engagement. I don't see what discussion is needed. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 02:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I support this. Go ahead and do it! Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the 2016 photo is much less flattering than the 2014 one, and therefore should not be used. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
There's probably a better image out there than either of these two, but given the well-sourced online vitriol directed at Quinn, choosing the less-complimentary photo of these two is a no-go. Even suggesting that that's the better photo makes it seem like you have an agenda. No way. Rockypedia (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
If neither image is clear shouldn't we just remove them both, and a link to Commons? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • 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. You can even tighten the crop and make it clearer. It's worked this way across the dozens if not hundreds of biography pages I've edited, your baseless accusations aside. Is this how this talk page works? Everything has to go to RfC? czar 14:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Well could you crop it, and perhaps remove the microphone? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
And for those who want to see a free-use image this is not complimentary or of high quality then please see File:Zoe Quinn - GDC 2014.jpg, and only after that should you accuse an editor of having an agenda. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of "flattery", we should lead with withever image is better quality. The new image looks like a bad snapshot rather than a professional photograph - the composition is unbalanced, the subject isn't looking at the camera, etc. The "car" image isn't great either, but it's definitely a better photograph. Kaldari (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
original source for 2016 image
  • One image is much more complimentary than the other, but that's not a trivial concern. We shouldn't ignore aesthetics, since the lede photo is the main visual representation of the person in the article. We cannot claim to be respectful if we actively chose to use an insultingly unflattering image. The newer one is definitely less flattering to a fault. Sorry, but I really don't understand how anyone could claim otherwise. The car shot isn't ideal for an encyclopedia, but until something better one comes along, this is the better choice by a mile. Grayfell (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I concur. Furthermore, keep the lead image; include the professional engagement image in the text as an example of professional engagment & continuing advocacy. kencf0618 (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
It seems like it would make more sense to use the full image for that. Grayfell (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
We could use this high quality image File:Zoe Quinn Camera 2014.jpg for the infobox and the full image in the text body. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Just to note I've removed the image from the infobox and have added an image of her at an event in the body of the article,
Each and every image of her at Commons is so far awful and none are what I would consider encyclopedic, The camera image (suggested by Emir above) is even worse as her entire face is covered by the camera, In short Ms/Mrs Quinn can either upload an appropriate image or the infobox can stay image-less. –Davey2010Talk 21:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Preferred Gender Pronouns to be used in the article

(non-admin closure) May be a bit hasty, but this was at WP:ANRFC and it looks pretty clear-cut. Consensus is overwhelming, RSes unanimous and recent, and Zoë's deleted blog post highly ambivalent, if relevant at all. The article should use feminine pronouns. Snuge purveyor (talk) 06:12, 24 September 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.

Since January of this year, editors have been conflicted about which pronouns to use in Quinn's BLP article. As a result of controversies and events in the subject's life (Gamergate is the obvious one), any discussion like this can become contentious, heated, and personal. But the point of Wikipedia is to rise above these controversies and display facts from as close to a WP:NPOV as possible, while following the WP:BLP guidelines as closely as possible. In this case, the relevant guidelines are MOS:GENDERID, which clearly states that we should "give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources." I'll summarize the points made by all sides below:

In the case of Quinn, some editors pointed to a blog post published on the subject's personal tumblr that says "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." In this, the subject remarks on apathy for gendered PGPs, but defaults to "they/their/them."
Some editors remarked on their distaste for the Singular they, but wikipedia is pretty clear on this. The singular they is a perfectly acceptable use of english grammar on this site. As is stated in MOS:GENDERID, it does require a note of explanation when nonconventional or if it would be confusing to the general public.
Further complicating the issue is that Quinn has since deleted the blog post in question. Whether a deleted blog post can still be said to be the author's "most up-to-date" "self-designation" is up for debate.
Numerous reliable sources from the source's publisher,[1] personal website,[2] and retweeted, blogged, and referenced by the subject use "she/her/hers."[3][4][5][6] But, as has been noted in MOS:GENDERID, this isn't about what is published the most widely. It's about the preferences of the subject.
Sources

  1. ^ "Crash Override: How Gamergate (Nearly) Destroyed My Life, and How We Can Win the Fight Against Online Hate". Barnes & Noble. PublicAffairs. Retrieved 16 September 2017.
  2. ^ Quinn, Zoë. "Crash Override". Zoë Quinn. SquareSpace. Retrieved 16 September 2017.
  3. ^ Malone, Noreen. "The Woman Targeted by Gamergate on Surviving a World-Altering Trolling Attack". Select All. New York Magazine. Retrieved 16 September 2017.
  4. ^ Burns, Katelyn. "Zoe Quinn on Surviving Gamergate and the Rise of the Alt-Right". Broadly. Vice News. Retrieved 16 September 2017.
  5. ^ "Twitter". Katelyn Burns (Twitter). Retrieved 16 September 2017.
  6. ^ "Myst Galaxy Books". Myst Galaxy Books (Twitter). Retrieved 16 September 2017.

So what do we do? Please state your vote in bold text with an explanation in the space below. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

she/her/hers I think since the subject deleted the blog post in question, we should disregard this post as an 'expression of the subject's self-designation.' Instead, we should default to the PGP used in news/press releases/twitter/etc as uncorrected by the subject. I also (perhaps, controversially) think that these things boil down to a cost/benefit analysis. Does the benefit of appealing to a PGP expressed and then retracted by a subject who also expresses very little frustration with the common use of "she/her/hers" outweigh the costs of a more confusing article full of grammar workarounds? In this case, no I don't think the benefits outweigh the costs. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
She/her The deletion of the blog post may be a retraction of Quinn's previous self-designation. We can't be certain without additional clarification from the subject. But [if] it has not been retracted, then it is still true that all pronouns are acceptable, including "she/her". Reach Out to the Truth 18:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • We should use they/their per MOS:GENDERID, as that was the most recent explicit self-designation. Quinn has used "she" in the past, but also the gendered noun "boy". (Note that gendered nouns are valid self-identification per our own guidelines.) What the subject's publisher says shouldn't matter, or else our biographies hagiographies would describe every celebrity as five years younger and kilos lighter. Whether or not the source is WP:OFFLINE also shouldn't matter, or articles on every out-of-print book or album would include some speculation about how the author/artist/publisher was deeply ashamed about its contents and secretly fears it being reissued and won't you please stop talking about this dark time in their life thank you very much. I also get the idea that Quinn doesn't care very much either way, hence the varied personal usage, which also suggests to me that singular they is the best approach. Woodroar (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I really think your interpretation of "It's me, the business boy" is reading into things, a particularly persnickety flavor of WP:OR... Could be a joke, a play on gender stereotypes, anything. Plenty of people who wear "boyish" clothes identify as women. And Quinn in numerous places in her recent book describes herself as "a woman." She explicitly disavowed cross-dressing in that deleted blogpost, etc. That is most definitely not an expression of gender preferences from a RS.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I am fairly apathetic about this particular case. Quinn has published a lot of material we don't use, in particular relating to other careers she has had. Jumping on minutiae of a (now) deleted blog post to change the pronouns, even when it was clear that this wasn't a preference, seems undue weight. Given that we have introduced inaccuracies to the article perusing this particular goal, I would suggest that a clear use of the pronouns she/her where the referent is clear would be fine. I would caution anyone implementing this not to blanket change "they" to "she", as a blanket change of "they" to "Quinn" really messed things up previously.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC).

she/her/hers I got an email about the RFC, so I'll repeat what I just wrote above down here: Her Crash Override book just came out 11 days ago, and she's using the pronoun "she" in all the promotional materials surrounding it. I think we can finally lay this to rest. Example: [21] We're now basing this solely on a deleted tumblr post, and not on the latest materials released by the subject herself? Surely she had full control over the wording that accompanied her own book. Jcr13 (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

"Surely she had full control over the wording that accompanied her own book" - that sound you just heard was a a vast contingent of authors laughing. -- Author Nat Gertler (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

She/Her/Hers For the reasons outlined by @Jcr13. This isn't even really up for debate if Quinn is using "she" as her own pronoun again. R00b07 (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

She/Her. Her website currently includes self-identification as a woman. See Quinn, Zoë. "August Never Ends", Unburntwitch.com (November 1, 2015): "It’s important to know that I am not special here - it’s a fate I share with every other woman that is a high-profile target of online harassment." This seems more relevant than a deleted "apathetic" blog post or promotional materials using "she" that may have been written by other people. Also see: Quinn, Zoe. Crash Override: How Gamergate (Nearly) Destroyed My Life, and How We Can Win the Fight Against Online Hate, pp. ‪8 and 37 (‪PublicAffairs‬, ‪2017): "‬I'm a queer feminine person....I was seemingly the only woman in the room without a college degree...."‪ Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Feminine pronouns Since this is 'default' and no clear valid 'personal pref.' reason is given for deviating from it, to use anything else is drawing attention to a matter of little significance to us (or apparently her). Pincrete (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Note I am not sure if an RfC overrules MOS, so make sure that any answers are policy based and not just votes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting (and horrifying) to me that people think this RfC is an attempt to overrule policy or (as said to me elsewhere) to help Quinn determine her own PGPs or an attempt to hurt or attack Quinn. None of those things are true. A RfC would be obviously unneeded if the policy could be clearly applied. In this particular case, in the absence of a clear application of the MOS, we have to escalate to dispute resolution to help determine how to apply the MOS. This is the first step in that process. If Quinn tweets tomorrow from a verified twitter account "I prefer they/their/them, thanks everybody" then this RfC would instantaneously be meaningless. This RfC is needed in the absence of clear info.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

she/her/hers On her official website, which you can access by clicking "Official website" on her Wikipedia article, is a page about her book that has freshly come out, where it says: "... She is a video game developer ..." --Distelfinck (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

She/her/hers While people's self identification should be used, what she identified with, was, essentially, whatever you want. Given that everyone else uses "her", there's no real reason to change it, as she said she was ambivalent about it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Unless I'm missing something, was there any other source nevertheless reason to use "they" over "she" besides the single (now deleted) Tumblr post? If not, the litany of official/affiliated sources using "she" in relation to Quinn's book would appear to indicate the author's preference. czar 05:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Though there isn't yet a guideline for this, in case of apathy, I before following the reliable sources is the "next best thing". Therefore, I too suggest using feminine pronouns. ~Mable (chat) 05:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Feminine pronouns for now. The Tumblr post where Quinn suggests preference for singular they appears to be deleted. As Quinn has control over the blog, the cab be interpreted as a reaction or at least not an accident. As such, the removal of that statement, to me, indicates it should not be considered as part of MOS:GENDERID. Thus, use of feminine pronouns is appropriate as they are verifiable with reliable sources (WP:V) in reference to Quinn and appear on webpages Quinn assumably had editorial control over (see links about to personal website). That said, should this individual ever explicitly stated a different preference, we must change to that preference. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
"That said, should this individual ever explicitly stated a different preference, we must change to that preference". Does this rule apply to everyone who has a bio, or just Zoe? Also, no matter how ridiculous the pronoun is, or no matter how grammatically incorrect it is, Wikipedia must conform to personal pronoun preferences? If I was deemed worthy of having a Wiki article, and I requested that people call me by the pronouns "xystred" and "CA$HMONEY", would Wikipedia have to use those pronouns in the article? R00b07 (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
As mentioned elsewhere, I think MOS:GENDERID is a fair guideline. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@R00b07: The answer to your disingenuous question is at MOS:GENDERID. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
My question wasn't disingenuous at all. It was in complete sincerity. I was simply highlighting the lengths of absurdity that can be reached with MOS:GENDERID, if followed to a T. MOS:GENDERID states to use people's self-designation, but also to avoid confusing constructions. Well, when your personal pronoun makes little sense on a grammatical level (like a singular they, or CA$HMONEY instead of he/she, for example, conflicts occur.) R00b07 (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
"Singular they" was good enough for William Shakespeare; CA$HMONEY, to my knowledge, was not. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Our language has changed quite considerably since the time of Shakespeare. We don't use the word "Unhousel'd", nor do we say "Ay, there's the rub". If you want to read Wiki articles in Shakespearean English, that's fine, be my guest. But at the very least, we should be consistent. Either have everything written in 1600s English (use a singular they; and also use words like "thine" and "thou", as well as other archaic words); or have everything written in fairly modern English (you know, where he/she is the third person singular?). But we can't pick and choose rules we like from 400 years ago because it conveniently upholds our preconceived beliefs on gender. I mean we technically can, but who are we kidding? "They (singular) also have a magnetic implant in the left ring finger" will never sound as natural, nor will it ever be as grammatically correct as, "She also has a magnetic implant on her left ring finger." R00b07 (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@R00b07: This is not the place to make ridiculous arguments or to make fun of users. Please take it to your Twitter or somewhere else if you want to opine about common language use. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Please show me direct evidence where I made fun of users, and I will apologize. If anything, I've been accused of being "disingenuous" and of making "ridiculous arguments" (Friendly reminder of WP:AGF), simply for having an opinion that goes against the grain. I'm simply responding to his/her point that Shakespeare used a singular they, therefore it must be okay to use a singular they at all times in Modern Standard English. I'm directly responding to their point (which didn't receive any scolding) and I didn't name call, so my point is completely valid; especially since this RfD is all about pronouns, and which ones we should use in the article. In other words, it's not like I came out of the blue and started ranting about common language usage. It was a very specific response to a statement made in response to my comment. R00b07 (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@R00b07:, Just jumping in to say that many people actually do use Ay, there's the rub in a referential context. Language is not a firm construct made of stone or immutable physical laws. It's a self referential clusterfuck of norms and tendencies that wax and wane and we are left with the pieces. Let's form the pieces into something most people agree on. MOS reflects this fluidity, and I think that's a good thing. Just because it's hard to figure out when something is a "confusing construction" doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@Shibbolethink: People absolutely use Ay, there's the rub in a referential context, but I was trying to say that people don't use it on a day to day basis in everyday dialogue (In other words, we don't use the phrase for it's literal meaning, like Shakespeare did in his time). I agree that grammar and language are fluid concepts and are subject to change over time. However, I still believe that some basic rules (using standard third person singular pronouns, for example) need to be upheld, especially on an encyclopedia. R00b07 (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@R00b07: I took your comment "when your personal pronoun makes little sense on a grammatical level (like a singular they..." as directed at me and others who use or would likely use singular they. If it was unintentionally (agf), okay, but it certainly could be interpreted that way. Also, using singular they is quite common in natural speech, to the extent that someone who tries to avoid it still uses it ("I'm directly responding to their point"). As for Quinn's article, if singular they were to be used, we can address specific points where the might be pronoun reference confusion as needed. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Feminine (Summoned by bot) Remembering that the MOS is not policy. L3X1 (distænt write) 12:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • She/her/hers. That appears to be the most up to date WP:GENDERID per her website.[22] Per the above, it doesn't appear that the only post where she expresses a preference for other identifiers is live anymore.--Cúchullain t/c 12:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • She/her/hers - one deleted blog post does not outweigh the mountain of other sources described above, both primary and secondary, that describe subject in the feminine voice. As L3X1 astutely pointed out, MOS is a guideline, not policy, and I'm pretty sure that given the current evidence, even following the MOS guideline, we should use "she". Rockypedia (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • She/her/hers -- the same as the subject's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • She/her/hers Summoned by at bot. Based on the conclusions above and reviewing the mentioned primary sources. Comatmebro (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Is this some sort of joke? I was literally about to edit the entire article because I thought that somebody who didn't speak English as a first language had authored it. Just change it to "she", FFS. This is the most bureaucratic "hurdle" I've ever seen on Wikipedia and that's saying something. If you refuse to change it, at the VERY least, add some sort of indicator to the top of the article so that readers know this isn't just a poorly written article. The Cake is a Lie T / C 08:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • She/her/hers per the book listing above and Quinn's ambivalence. It was an idiotic decision to turn this article into a gender controversy in the first place. It's already a cluster of idiotic gamergate bios in a walled garden of nuttiness. Good luck to the editor that implements this. --DHeyward (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
We're Wikipedia editors. Idiotic decisions are our birthright! Dumuzid (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm uncertain as to how this is even a controversy. Can we not implement a specific gender? This is profoundly insane. The article reads like it was written incorrectly. Is this her call or what? I'm lost trying to figure how we're attempting to create a global encyclopedia to educate people and somehow this article doesn't want to be part of the fold. It's utterly ridiculous. You all know this, just as well as I do. The Cake is a Lie T / C 11:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    • There's a note after the first use of "They". And yes, we use the pronouns that the article's subject requests. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    • See MOS:GENDERID for the relevant policy. We go by the subject's preference; the complication in this case is that it's unclear what the subject's preference is on account of both the statement sort-of saying no preference and sort-of saying "use they as default", and also being deleted. Personally, though, I'm inclined to agree that this particular discussion is slightly silly given that the point of the now-deleted blog post reads to me as "don't sweat it, I don't even want to have that conversation." The point of MOS:GENDERID is to avoid harm to the subject, and Quinn has clearly indicated that none of the choices would be harmful here (except possibly making a big deal out of it on account of the not-wanting-that-conversation part, which would mean we've chosen the worst possible choice regardless of the outcome of this RFC, haha.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • They/them. The most recent thing Zoe has said about pronouns is that "they" is correct. If nobody has any more recent explicit expression of pronoun preference, we should stick with that. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Is "I guess if you just want to be accurate go for 'they' but I won’t be offended by any" really what you would call an "explicit expression"? Rockypedia (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Feminine pronouns, but only based on the present circumstances, not a per se standard. For one thing, I'd like to point out that I believe the OP may have slightly mischaracterized community consensus on the on just how absolute the primacy of self-selected gender pronouns is to every occasions. It's true, we have a style guide entry which directs us that personal preference on the part of the article subject prevails over reliable sources, even though we don't allow this for any other aspect of personal identity. It's a very controversial standard, but it has become the de facto approach in recent years. I think it's a bit peculiar that we let personal preference on gender identity supplant an approach predicated in WP:NPOV and WP:V when, as a matter of the project's core philosophy, we generally don't do this for any other aspect of personal identity. But that said, most of these discussions are tempests in teapots and at the end of the day, most articles work just as well with one set of pronouns as another.
All of that said, while rough community consensus holds that personal preference prevails over RS, you'll find more resistance to the assertion that it prevails over every practical editorial constraint. Generally if a subject transitions, it's easy enough to engineer an article to reflect the MOS:GENDERID standard and respect the subject's self-presentation. But every discussion I've seen on whether to use more idiosyncratic pronouns on a particular article (or accross articles broadly) has led to fairly limited support. Singular they is a bit of a grey area; it can lead to confusing prose in many contexts. That's not a matter of disrespect for gender identity, nor linguistic prescriptivism, it's just a pragmatic reality. That said, a really skilled set of editors could maybe make it work, though it would surely be complicated in light of the complexity of this particular BLP. It's certainly the kind of situation where, if i were a regular editor to this article, I'd want to see a comprehensive draft before I supported that approach on MOS:GENDERID grounds. Because ultimately the goal of how to describe a topic with least confusion to the general reader has to be the first priority.
I'd also want to see sufficient WP:WEIGHT in the sources to support the assertion that this was explicitly what the subject had endorsed as their gender and/or preferred pronouns. And that's really where the argument for the present article and circumstances falls short for me. I'm not convinced the sourcing supports the assertion of any gender other than the female one that accompanies RS discussion of the subject, so we should default to the present usage, unless further, more explicit statements become a matter of record in the sources; that too is something mandated by the principle of MOS:GENDERID (and yet also consistent with MOS:IDENTITY). Snow let's rap 05:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Right. I don't think this is the place for us to discuss the future of MOS:GENDERID and I specifically avoided making any commentary about whether or not I agree fully with the way MOS:GENDERID currently exists. Or even whether it should be followed. In this case, it's the relevant guideline, so let's treat it like a guideline. The principle of charity says you should argue against the best possible incarnation of your opponent's argument, and that's what I've done. Even with the best possible incarnation of the they pronoun argument, it appears most people still understand the feminine pronouns should be used here. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion - pronouns

I just ran across an article in Marie Claire that's by Anita Sarkeesian who's interviewing Quinn. It was published September 21. In it, feminine pronouns are used. Link EvergreenFir (talk) 07:04, 23 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoë_Quinn/Archive_3&oldid=1142290481"