Jump to content

Talk:Zoë Quinn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Johnny 42 (talk | contribs) at 23:45, 15 November 2015 (→‎Bias). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move 9 August 2015

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

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


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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

MarkBernstein and now that we have a directly-expressed preference and The New Yorker missed it?
Support given subjects own preference for what I now know is a diaereses (thanks Strongjam!), seems the right course of action. Brustopher, while I don't doubt that this happened, is there anything other than a private message on Reddit we can refer to if this comes up in later discussions? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would a screenshot of the messages do? Brustopher (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Here's a link to a screenshot.[16] Brustopher (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Per WP:COMMONNAME. She is commonly known without the umlaut. ONR (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Would you mind linking to the reddit URL that shows her response? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Well then, my apologies, DHeyward. You were right. Dumuzid (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @DHeyward: These are the two books[19][20]. They both seem to have received some coverage. Brustopher (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Brustopher's relayed message. We should follow the subject's preference in this. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the subject has indicated a preference for Zoë Quinn. — Strongjam (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]

It's an opinion piece and labeled as such. It's not worth inclusion.--Jorm (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
What more reliable source than a legal expert writing about a court case? AWildAppeared (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

Why would an encyclopedia not note her former name? AWildAppeared (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Because no reliable sources deem it important enough to report on, only op-eds. Woodroar (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That's interesting. Thank you. AWildAppeared (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to Volokh, 'Zoe Quinn' is her legal name now. PublicolaMinor (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I've added a citation in-line that supports the assertion directly. — Strongjam (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can these sources be used for article?

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Thank you, you're right. Gamaliel (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ummmm.... who in this thread is attacking Quinn, personally or otherwise? MarkBernstein (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoë_Quinn&oldid=690833210"