Talk:Zoë Quinn

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)

On categories

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

AfD?

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

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

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

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

Requested move 9 August 2015

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

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

---

Zoe Quinn → Zoë Quinn – Zoë Quinn is a Nom de Plume and includes the diacritic over the 'e' to express that it is pronounced in English (difference in sound is "Joe" vs. "Joey"). Her credits use the diacritic[1]. Finally, MoS says diacritics should be used in names Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names#Diacritics. I created the diacritic version as a redirect but it should be the primary location per RS and MoS. They just need to be swapped. DHeyward (talk) 06:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. --DHeyward (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Hey DHeyward, from my brief research, I would respectfully disagree. From Ms. Quinn's own sites, like her old twitter [2], her personal website [3], the page for her most famous game [4], to various Reliable Sources like the New Yorker [5], [6], the New York Times [7], the Washington Post [8], the Los Angeles Times [9], The Telegraph [10], The Guardian [11], and Boston Magazine [12], the name appears without the diacritic. While I quite agree that the name in general is often written with the umlaut, I think this specific article should defer to Ms. Quinn's own style, and from my brief research, it seems to be "Zoe" rather than "Zoë." Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  The diacritic only appears because she uses it which I presume is her preference. Her patreon page and account for another example [13]. The diacritic wasn't added because of translation, it's a genuine preference. It's lack of use may be font or editorial styles, but the only reason the diacritic has ever been printed is her preference. It's not a translation. --DHeyward (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks DHeyward, I never suggested there was a translation issue. The Patreon page is a good example and does support the diacritic -- but also the non-diacritic rendering (in the actual text thereof). I'm not sure Ms. Quinn is particularly dogmatic either way. As such, I still think the present situation is probably preferable. Dumuzid (talk) 08:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  Support in light of the disclosed preference. Dumuzid (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - we always have diacritics on foreign names, all across Wikipedia (with only 1 exception: the blonde Serbian tennis player who has one editor campaigning for her to be given an "English name" for those who've come late to this show), but with Anglos, it depends how they themselves write it. Without evidence from her own page, we can't do this. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  It's not foreign. I cited her own credit here. [14]. English papers often remove diacritic marks. I can't imagine she would be credited against her wishes when the diacritic was available. I think there is a "Common name" argument possible for keeping it as is, but I believe her preference is for the diacritic mark. The diacritic only appears because she uses it which I presume is her preference. Her patreon page and account for another example [15]. The diacritic wasn't added because of translation, it's a genuine preference. --DHeyward (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Then support per http://framed-game.com/presskit/sheet.php?p=framed, no, sorry, User:DHeyward it is Ana Ivanovic (sic) who is the foreign exception, that was my foreign comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

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

MarkBernstein and now that we have a directly-expressed preference and The New Yorker missed it?

• Oppose: If the personal site doesn't use the umlaut, and it's not a foreign name, I don't think we should use an umlaut. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Support given subjects own preference for what I now know is a diaereses (thanks Strongjam!), seems the right course of action. Brustopher, while I don't doubt that this happened, is there anything other than a private message on Reddit we can refer to if this comes up in later discussions? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Would a screenshot of the messages do? Brustopher (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It'd make me feel more certain in supporting the move, and might convince editors who might otherwise not. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's a link to a screenshot.[16] Brustopher (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• • Subject preference is not a WP:AT consideration. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per WP:COMMONNAME. She is commonly known without the umlaut. ONR (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose It isn't even used it on the personal sites. We don't attach diacritics just because Wikipedia allows diacritics, they must be in use, commonly. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

  That's false. It wasn't in Wikipedia until I created the redirect based on the use in her official credit for "Framed" [17] and her personal Patreon page [18]. COMMONNAME is a reasonable objection but it's not because Wikipedia allows diacritics. The reasoning I make is that her professional credits reflecting her nom de plume are her actual preference for its use. English locale twitter and mobile aren't particularly friendly to diacritics so I suspect she is fine with either and uses both. Wikipedia isn't limited, however, and can reflect whatever she prefers without having to search the twitter font tables. I'm sure someone has contact with her and can ascertain whether she would prefer one over the other but it's clear that it is Quinn that uses both and it isn't an invention of Wikipedia. A "New Yorker" editor-at-large might relish creating a bunch of diacritic redirects but I only created it because two sites she is personally involved use the diacritic. --DHeyward (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Twitter uses UTF8, so she could easily have added the dieresis, and The New Yorker's omitting it seems significant. Her Facebook page also omits the diacritic. Checking with the subject makes sense. MarkBernstein (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

For those unfamiliar The New Yorker really loves the diaeresis. On the topic of this move, baring a clear statement of preference from Quinn I find WP:COMMONNAME most compelling, but my oppose is so weak I don't care to vote on it. — Strongjam (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC) - Updated as the Quinn has communicated a preference. Strongjam (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind linking to the reddit URL that shows her response? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support I've messaged Quinn on reddit and she says she prefers Zoë. Also she wants to know if the biography can mention her work as a writer. She's written for sites like Vice and Cracked, and been published in two books. Brustopher (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

  Well then, my apologies, DHeyward. You were right. Dumuzid (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you. :) Even the blind squirrel .... I don't know if it's a good thing to scoop the New Yorker on diacritical usage. It would be entertaining to ask them for a correction. --DHeyward (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

  Also, no reason to oppose her publication requests if they are notable. She can provide citations on this talk page (or through whatever means she used) and article inclusion of how/what/where would be up to consensus. I changed her role and status on 'Framed' to the official credited role and past tense since it's complete. There's probably quite a few things that were added as "in progress" news but are now historical. We could use her own page, her own articles or project reference to update them if they weren't covered. New stuff would obviously have to be notable. --DHeyward (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Subject preference is not a WP:AT consideration. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  @DHeyward: These are the two books[19][20]. They both seem to have received some coverage. Brustopher (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support per Brustopher's relayed message. We should follow the subject's preference in this. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Subject preference is not a WP:AT consideration. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support as the subject has indicated a preference for Zoë Quinn. — Strongjam (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Subject preference is not a WP:AT consideration. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Mild support with a healthy dose of WP:DGAF since one will always redirect to the other. But given the subject's stated preference, there's no harm in the move and making the current spelling the redirect. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - the original title is more commonly used. The preference of the subject does not override Wikipedia policies. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  It's technically not different as the "e" and "ë" are the same letter in English so WP:AT policy is followed regardless of style. "Naive" and "naïve", for example, are the same English word with the same spelling. Once it's established they are the same, it comes down to style as to whether diacritical marks are used. In this case, the person prefers the version with the diacritical mark for their proper name. It takes nothing away from the title to use it and it isn't different from the version without the mark. It's an accepted, if outdated, use in English. Thus, deferring to preference does the least harm and confers the most respect and dignity to the subject. She prefers her name be written that way (and pronounced that way). Note "Zoe Quinn" and "Zoë Quinn" are identical in spelling (it's a font/alphabet shortcoming that we can even have both pages in English Wikipedia) so the use in references is the same with only style differences akin to things like capitalization. It would be rather presumptuous to impose generic Style Guide rules on known exemptions to specific English proper names. Had she chose not to use the diæresis ^{(see what I did there?)} we would respect that as well. It's a rather trivial thing, but it is also a personal thing, reflecting how she prefers to be addressed in print and it doesn't conflict with sources. --DHeyward (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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 ([21], [22], [23]). 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)

• Yevhen Volokh is a highly reliable source in this area, and the WP is a highly respected source. His opinions on her case are notable and meet basic criteria as a RS. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:50, 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: [24], 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?

• Drye Wit, Game of (sticks &) stones – prior restraint & online defamation
• Eugene Volokh, You are also ordered not to post any further information about the plaintiff (already mentioned above)
• Eugene Volokh, Washington state court barring speech by a Massachusetts resident, and the Gjoni/Van Valkenburg controversy

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)

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[25] 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)

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 [26]) 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 [27]) 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)

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.[28] 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: [29], 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 [30][31] 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 [32], as does The Syndey Morning Herald [33]. 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)

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? [34]. --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)

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) 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)

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. [35]. The current article innovates in the English language which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. See [36]. 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)

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)

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)