Misplaced Pages

Talk:Brianna Wu: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:47, 31 October 2014 view sourceTarc (talk | contribs)24,217 edits →Image: - what?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:08, 29 December 2024 view source Himaldrmann (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users544 edits →Edit request: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply 
(967 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{Controversial}}
{{WPBannerShell|blp=yes|1=
{{American English}}
{{WikiProject Biography |class=|listas=Wu, Brianna |living=Y |needs-photo= |a&e-work-group=y |a&e-priority=}}
{{Old AfD multi|date=13 October 2014 (UTC)|result='''keep'''|page=Brianna Wu|date2=3 August 2015|result2='''speedy keep'''|page2=Depression Quest}}
{{WikiProject Video games|class=Stub|importance=low|Indie=y}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|blp=y|collapsed=yes|listas=Wu, Brianna|1=
{{WikiProject Biography |politician-work-group=yes |a&e-work-group=y |a&e-priority=}}
{{WikiProject Video games |importance=Low |Indie=y}}
{{WikiProject Women in Red}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|WV=y|WV-importance=Low|MA=y|MA-importance=}}
}} }}
{{Recruiting|date= 26 Nov, 2016}}
{{Gamergate sanctions|brief=yes}}
{{pp-blp|small=yes}}
{{oldafdfull| date = 13 October 2014 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' | page = Brianna Wu }}
{{tmbox
== Article belongs on Misplaced Pages? ==
|image=]

|text=<big>'''WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES'''</big><br />
Has this individual made enough contributions to merit having a wikipedia article? It seems like this article (at least) sounds like it was written as a self-biography. How does anybody else feel about this? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
The ] procedure applies to this page; any editor who repeatedly or egregiously fails to adhere to applicable policies may be blocked, topic-banned, or otherwise restricted. Note also that editors on this article are subject to a limit of ''']''' (with exceptions for vandalism or BLP violations). Violation may result in blocks without further warning. Enforcement should be requested at ].<p>Also, this Talk page may not be edited by accounts with fewer than <big>'''500 edits'''</big>, or by accounts that are less than <big>'''30 days'''</big> old. Edits made by accounts that do not meet these qualifications may be removed. (Such removals are not subject to any "revert-rule" counting.)}}
: This was already addressed at the articles for deletion nomination page. The consensus of the AFD proposal was Keep. if you feel that was incorrect, feel free to make another AFD request; however, it's unlikely to succeed (I've yet to see an article pass an AFD once and then fail later). For now, this article stays. --] (]) 06:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
{{contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|protection=full|blp}}
::It wasn't an autobiography. Personally, I felt that it shouldn't have been kept, but the consensus differed from my view, and that's all good. We can resubmit an article for review, but generally I feel that editors should wait at least six months - that will also give some distance on the current events, which will perhaps give us a clear perspective one way or the other. In the meantime, so long as we do our best to provide broad coverage of the subject, there should be no issues with keeping it. - ] (]) 06:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
{{MOS-TW|ds=no}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
== Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2014 ==
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}

|maxarchivesize = 150K
{{edit semi-protected|Brianna Wu|answered=yes}}
|counter = 2
<!-- Begin request -->
|minthreadsleft = 4
Under the Controversy section of the page, it mentions supporters of Gamergate are what spread her personal information. Unfortunately, this is incorrect as Gamergate is very active on twitter, anyone can adopt the hashtag and say whatever they want and the more prominent supporters of Gamergate do not allow or condone such actions.
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
Just like those claiming to be feminists act radical and tarnish the Feminist name, so too does Gamergate have it's fringe group tarnishing it's name. It is not fair nor correct to group every feminist with the radicals, it is not fair or correct to group the main group of Gamergate with it's own radicals.
|algo = old(90d)

|archive = Talk:Brianna Wu/Archive %(counter)d
I apologize for the long-winded and roundabout way of asking for the Controversy section to reflect that the fringe group that claim to be supporters are the ones harassing this woman as well as other women in her field. My apologies again and thank you for your time in reading this.
}}
<!-- End request -->
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=90}}
] (]) 19:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
__FORCETOC__

I support this because there is no clear proof of who posted the information. The information was posted in a thread on Gamergate on the imageboard 8chan.co by an anonymous user. Here is an image of the thread, with personal information removed: http://marsmar-lord-of-mars.tumblr.com/image/99684358450] (]) 19:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the Gamergate comments in the controversy section seem unnecessary to the article and heavily biased towards supporters of Gamergate, it could be removed and the article would be better without it ] (]) 13:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC).

:Two of Misplaced Pages's main policies are ] and ], meaning that we write what reliable sources say, and only that. In this case, reliable sources attribute the information postings to "Gamergate supporters", so that's what we do as well. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

:Show me a reliable source that has actually tied the leaking of her information to Gamergate. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Even so, I don't see how the way different media outlets view Gamergate is relevant to the article and I doubt any reliable source has actually tied the leak to Gamergate supporters ] (]) 17:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


== Edit request: Mentioning her strong Zionist/Pro-Israel advocacy ==
:Said "Reliable sources" are the ones that are at the center of the controversy to begin with and should not be considered reliable. ] (]) 18:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


{{edit fully-protected|answered=yes}}
::You're correct, in part. The Polygon article reads: "After tweeting that members of the 8chan message board — a refuge for former 4chan posters — and GamerGate supporters had posted her personal information online, Wu ...". This means that Wu, and not Polygon, identified the posters as Gamergate supporters, and I've made that attribution clear in the text. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I refrained from asking for this to be added to the article as this hasn't reached the news until rather recently, but Wu has spent most of the past year vocally supporting Israel.


https://www.thefp.com/p/brianna-wu-bari-weiss-gamergate-progressive-antisemitism-honestly
:::Alright, we're almost there. Now we just need to remove the blurb about how Gamergate is somehow about harassing women and then the article should be fine. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::You say that across several pages but that's not going to happen.—] (]) 02:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, I guess a more neutral viewpoint towards Gamergate can't really happen on Misplaced Pages. On topic, I don't see the need for the sentence "an online campaign initially intended to offer criticism of games journalism, but which has since become increasingly associated with the harassment of women in video gaming." You could easily cut it out, change the following sentence from "Anonymous supporters of the campaign then posted personal information about her in GamerGate-related discussions, and in October 2014, Wu left her home after receiving threats of violence towards both herself and her husband." to "Anonymous users then posted personal information about her in GamerGate-related discussions, and in October 2014, Wu left her home after receiving threats of violence towards both herself and her husband." and come across as less biased and more neutral and still keep the same message. Especially considering the only person tying Gamergate supporters to the death threats is Wu herself. ] (]) 21:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::Misplaced Pages follows what is said in reliable sources, and if those sources are highly negative of the Gamergate campaign and their involvement with Wu being forced from her home then that is how Misplaced Pages will present the information.—] (]) 01:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::And none of the mentioned sources have accurately tied Gamergate supporters to the leakage of information, so I don't see why we're taking them seriously. Even though Brianna Wu is a victim, her unwanted involvement in the incident keeps her as a source from being unbiased so I don't think we can just take her word on this. ] (]) 02:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Mrs. Wu has stated on several occasions that she was reading a thread on 8chan's /gg/ where they posted her address and other personal details, and then she received the attacking tweets. She is allowed to say what she thinks and we can report on that information as her own personal opinions on the actions. That's how ] works.—] (]) 02:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Than why shouldn't we add two words such as "Wu claims" to the sentence stating that Gamergate supporters leaked her information, instead of just reporting it as a fact? ] (]) 02:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::She is not being cited so it isn't her claims on the matter.—] (]) 02:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::You say one post earlier that you can report on the information as her own personal opinions on the actions. How are her own personal opinions on the matter not her claims? Who's claims are they then, if so? ] (]) 02:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::She is not ''presently'' cited for anything in the article but if she is cited then all that she says must be taken at face value without any analysis of her claims.—] (]) 16:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::And the way the article is currently written (i.e. The line about Wu having to flee her home because of Gamergate supporters) without adding something about her claiming they're Gamergate supporters makes it sound like it's a factual statement that should be taken at face value without any analysis of her claims. That's exactly my point. ] (]) 18:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/09/09/opinion/israel-hamas-war-progressives-antisemitism/
The only reason why this article exists it to serve as an easily locatable briefing to anyone wishing to write articles about Brianna Wu, her alleged harassment or its alleged connection to GamerGate. Notice how this page was only created after her alleged harassment took place, and how that information has been a core part of the article since its creation. The sole purpose of this article is to push an agenda (demonisation of GamerGate), which is not in keeping with the stated goals of Misplaced Pages. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/09/11/opinion/letters-to-the-editor-progressives-antisemitism-jews-war/
The section, as it stands, meets and exceeds all of Misplaced Pages's guidelines for ] and ]. I'm closing this request unless you can provide verifiable sources that meet the community guidelines present at those pages. Unfortunately, your assertions of one thing or another, however true they may be, do not meet these requirements. --] (]) 21:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2024-06-02/ty-article/.premium/american-political-pundits-feud-on-social-media-over-israels-war-against-hamas/0000018f-d91e-dd44-a3ef-db1fa0df0000
: Let me be clear, since this is a matter of some controversy: provide sources that back up your claims, and I'm more than willing to include them as a rebuttal in the controversy section. The 1 link present in this talk discussion does not meet these requirements (nor is it really germane to this discussion). News articles, blog posts, etc. ''that are not written by yourself'' are eligible, as I understand the guidelines. If you disagree with my interpretation, feel free to reopen the request; however, I doubt you'll find anyone willing to modify the article until you can provided sources to back up your claims. --] (]) 21:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


https://www.newsnationnow.com/danabramslive/progressives-are-blaming-jewish-super-pac-for-losses-analyst/
"Personal information about her had previously been made public on the Internet by anonymous persons Wu linked to GamerGate" - This looks like an affirmative claim that is actually completely unsubstantiated at this point. It should either be solidly evidenced as is or reworded to reflect the tenuous link. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Unreliable sources:
:Wu posted opinions that are critical of gmaergaters. Wu is then harassed by anonymous people. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to note that the group of people she critiqued would then respond as they only know how to. ] (]) 02:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


https://quillette.com/2024/09/25/podcast-252-trans-rights-israel-and-the-progressive-circus-2/
::The burden of proof here falls onto Wu, she has no evidence that Gamergate supporters were the ones that actually leaked her information aside from her own word. Considering her negative views towards Gamergate I doubt we can consider her unbiased in this situation. The wording in question needs to be changed to reflect the fact it's only a claim that Gamergate supporters leaked her information, so that the article can be more neutral. Oh, and nice biased response. ] (]) 00:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
:::Here's the thing. It's not our problem if you think that Wu was wrong in her determination that it was Gamergate supporters who were behind the leaked information and the subsequent threat to herself and her husband. If people believe her, and that information is presented in the press, then that is what Misplaced Pages reports on. Unless there are any actual reliable sources saying that the claims that Gamergate is not involved (when Wu said multiple times that she saw her address get posted on 8chan's /gg/ and then the Tweets happened) then there is nothing that should be changed on this article on Misplaced Pages.—] (]) 16:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


https://nypost.com/2024/09/10/opinion/progs-have-become-monsters-repudiate-joe-kamala-and-other-commentary/
== GamerGate origins ==
The statement that GamerGate originated for "journalism ethics" is, at best, a contentious claim. The majority of reliable sources tend to depict the alleged ethics concerns as little more than a smokescreen or a thinly-veiled excuse to target Zoe Quinn and others. They tend to use terms such as "ostensibly" and "purportedly" to describe the journalism ethics claims. Since going into a deep dive on that issue is off-topic for this article, I've simply rewritten the section to avoid that debate. ] (]) 05:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
:Considering the fact that "reliable sources are either colluding with each other, as seen on GameJuornoPros, or have the exact same ideological bias at play, claiming that GamerGate is a "thinly veiled excuse" for anything is, at best, disingenuous. {{unsignedip|77.255.36.87}}
:: Getting to NBSB's original point, my own feeling is that we should follow ]. Since there are (at least) two significant views about the topic, both should be represented, the positive and the negative. Most of the sources that discuss Wu seem to be trying to describe GamerGate in the same way, and Misplaced Pages should, as best we can, summarize the predominant views in the sources, in as unbiased a manner as we can manage. In other words, I would support re-adding the phrase about GamerGate's origins being related to journalistic ethics, as it provides a more well-rounded view of the topic, which is what best serves our readers. --]]] 17:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
:::I invite you to develop phrasing that presents the mainstream, reliably-sourced viewpoint that the ethics issue is a smokescreen, while perhaps noting that a few fringe sources claim otherwise. ] (]) 19:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
::::The "mainstream, reliably-sourced viewpoint" is currently sourced from ], ], ] and The Escapist, All of which are outlets that are at the center of the ethics issue that has been presented and therefor should NOT be considered reliable. ] (]) 00:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::Your opinion about those sources is interesting, yet completely irrelevant. The fact that supporters or opponents of a particular POV have criticized particular reliable news sources does not in any way render them unreliable. To do otherwise would give such people a ] over what sources could be used in an article.
:::::I further note that the section you removed was sourced to ] and ], among others. ] (]) 00:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::Citations 16, 17, 18 and 20 are all from aforementioned sites and source 19 is from a report that only allowed somebody from one side of the issue to talk, And 15 is clearly biased against the issue. ] (]) 00:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Once again, personal opinions that sources are biased does not render them invalid or otherwise unusable. Otherwise, anyone could say any source is biased and we'd have no sources at all. ] (]) 00:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
{{cquote|A set of IRC logs released Saturday appear to show that a handful of 4chan users were ultimately behind #GamerGate, the supposedly grass-roots movement aimed at exposing ethical lapses in gaming journalism. The logs show a small group of users orchestrating a "hashtag campaign" to perpetuate misogynistic attacks by wrapping them in a debate about ethics in gaming journalism.}} — , ].
{{cquote| Sarkeesian noted that one of the threats specifically mentioned Gamergate, the anti-woman online movement that purports to be about journalistic ethics.}} — , ].
{{cquote|Known as "Gamergate," the controversy -- ostensibly over ethics in gaming journalism, but used as a vehicle to lash out against women in the gaming industry -- has shone a spotlight on the ugliest part of gaming culture.}} — , ].


I think it warrants a mention, as advocating for Israel and Zionism has been her primary activism for a while now. ]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 20:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 02:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


:@] this isn't really an actionable request in this form. Is there particular wording you would like added to the article? ] (] &#124; ]) 23:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:First Link: Multiple things wrong with the origins of Gamergate, supports an obvious bias against Gamergate, and implies that you can just ignore the #NotYourShield hashtag and other movements just because they started on 4chan. The IRC chat screencaps themselves don't really prove much in terms of the movement itself being "misogynist", and I don't know how seriously we can take them considering they are coming from Zoe Quinn herself.
:::@] How about this sentence in Career, after "She is a trans woman"?
:Second Link: Again, supports an obvious bias against gamergate, labels harassment that pro-GG supporters have been getting as just a political move, implies that Gamergate doesn't support the open letter made by a group of game developers, reports the skewed statistic that nearly 50% of gamers are women (the actual ratio of men to women in people that play games for a significant amount of time every week is 7 to 1), and the article itself just takes Anita's word on the death threats being Gamergate affiliated, even though Anita herself has posted no evidence to back up this claim.
::Since the outbreak of the ], Wu received media attention for her vocal support of ]. She has argued in '']'' that "my fellow leftists are betraying our Jewish allies" and "the casual ] I’d looked past in progressive spaces impossible to ignore."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Wu |first=Brianna |date=2024-09-09 |title=I fear that progressivism has become the very thing we fought against |url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/09/09/opinion/israel-hamas-war-progressives-antisemitism/ |access-date=2024-10-31 |website=The Boston Globe |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Fink |first=Rachel |date=2024-06-02 |title=Briahna vs Brianna: American Political Pundits Feud on Social Media Over Israel's War Against Hamas |url=https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2024-06-02/ty-article/.premium/american-political-pundits-feud-on-social-media-over-israels-war-against-hamas/0000018f-d91e-dd44-a3ef-db1fa0df0000 |website=Haaretz}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Abrams |first=Dan |date=2024-08-07 |title=Progressives are blaming Jewish super PAC for losses: Analyst |url=https://www.newsnationnow.com/danabramslive/progressives-are-blaming-jewish-super-pac-for-losses-analyst/ |work=NewsNation}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Weiss |first=Bari |date=2024-10-18 |title=Brianna Wu Says She Didn’t Change. The Progressive Movement Did. |url=https://www.thefp.com/p/brianna-wu-bari-weiss-gamergate-progressive-antisemitism-honestly |access-date=2024-10-31 |website=The Free Press |language=en}}</ref>
:Third Link: Most unbiased of the three links (that's not really saying much though), still purports the statistic that nearly 50% of gamers are women, tries to make Gamergate out to be a movement that is "looking to squash the voices of women at all costs", uses Anecdotal evidence to try to say that Gamergate has pushed women developers out of the industry, and again tries to make Gamergate out to be a "a vehicle to lash out against women in the gaming industry" without any real proof.
:None of these links do much to "prove" that Gamergate is a thinly veiled excuse to harass women in video games ] (]) 15:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC) ::And make sure to add the category "American Zionists." She identifies as such in the first article. ]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 00:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
:{{done}} With a little bit of stylistic reorganisation. Since this is a contentious article, I'd be happy to revert on any disagreement. ]‑] 12:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2014 == == Edit request: Category changes ==


Please remove category <nowiki>]</nowiki>, since this is an article about a person, not a company. I have already added the category to the redirect ], the company in question.
{{edit semi-protected|Brianna Wu|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->


Please add categories <nowiki>]</nowiki> and per the previous section, <nowiki>]</nowiki> and <nowiki>]</nowiki> and <nowiki>]</nowiki>.


] (]) 17:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Reviews by random users on a random website should not be included in this wiki, the information is not relevant and is strictly opinion of nobody in particular.


:Do we have reliable sources that she's against antisemitism or only that she's a zionist? Those two things aren't the same. ] (]) ] (]) 12:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
" One reviewer on Pocket Gamer called it intelligent and "hugely entertaining". Another cited some issues with pacing and a heavily linear storyline, but overall found it "enjoyable and compelling"
:{{done}}, partially. I removed the video game company category. I don't see how the other categories suggested are valid, possibly the zionist one. See the discussion immediately above, which may shed some light. If sources don't characterize her as zionist or antisemitist, then neither should the category listings. ~] <small>(])</small> 19:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::From the Free Press article:
::"We discuss Israel and why Brianna identifies as a Zionist."
::She later explains in the video that she strongly supports Israel and uses the label "Zionist" for herself. She also has identified as such on Twitter.
::https://www.thefp.com/p/brianna-wu-bari-weiss-gamergate-progressive-antisemitism-honestly
::https://x.com/BriannaWu/status/1794497394626949490
::]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 00:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks. I added the American Zionists category. ~] <small>(])</small> 01:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)


== Edit request 16 November 2024 ==
should all be removed.
<!-- End request -->
] (]) 17:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


{{edit fully-protected|answered=yes}}
:Rather disingenuously, you make it sound as if these were anonymous reviews by users on websites, when in reality it is a review written by a staffer on a notable gaming website. Nothing will be removed on this basis of this post. ] (]) 17:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
In the "Personal Life" section, uncapitalize "life" as it is not a proper noun. ] (]) 11:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:EP --> ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''(] • ] • ])''</small> 13:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)


== Edit request ==
== This line needs editing, it's kind of a mess. ==


{{edit fully-protected|answered=yes}}
" Her father had grown up in the small town of D'Lo, Mississippi, then joined the U.S. Navy to get a medical degree, and upon returning to Mississippi, opened his own clinic, and then with his wife, a series of other small entrepreneurial businesses, so Brianna was exposed at an early age to a dynamic environment of small businesses and the computers to run them."
I'm requesting:
# That, right above the paragraph about Wu's views regarding the Israel-Hamas war, a level-3 heading (===) named "political views" be added
# That the following text be added, using this reference , under the aforementioned "political views" heading: "{{tq|Wu has been a supporter of transgender rights, although she has not identified herself as "LGBTQIA+", which she considers to be a form of ]. She has used anti-trans language and slurs, including the word "tranny", which she once referred herself as. She has identified herself as an opponent of ] and has advocated against the rights of some transgender people to enter female spaces. Wu is a supporter of gender-affirming care and has described “lunatic trans activists” as an obstacle to transgender healthcare bigger than Republican activists. She has also argued that the transgender community had become an "extremist movement". Her views on transgender topics have been criticised by transgender activists including civil rights lawyer ], who said that Wu was attempting to "police the entire community", and Elon Musk's estranged daughter Vivian Jenna Wilson, who stated that Wu was trying to "rationalise bigotry". Her views on such topics, as well as her political positions on the Israel-Gaza war, made Wu a controversial political influencer on social media; in 2024, she claimed to be one of ]'s most blocked users.}}"
] (]) 19:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)


:@]. Please explain why this meets ]. Also, ] is reliable and I don't see why edit requests can't be made for potentially controversial edits. ] (]) 18:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Run on sentence, needs to be reworded.


:no. we're not a platform for fringe criticisms, and this template is only to be used to suggest routine, non-controversial edits anyway. ] (])
== Image ==
:: I am not sure how fringe applies here... ] (]) 18:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::it is a grouse from a far-leftist source, which is imo the definition of fringe. be that as it may, "Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus" is pretty straightforward and clear. this is not the sort of edit that will be added by mere request, so if you or the OP feel this is worthy of inclusion, then initiate a proper discussion to see if there is consensus to do so. ] (]) 19:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::As the contents of the edit are all supported by a source that is listed as reliable on RSP, I thought the edit would not be really that controversial. Anyways, I opened a thread on BLPN to see if any consensus can be built on this. I would also advise that you avoid answering fully protected edit requests, since they are supposed to be handled by admins. ] (]) 19:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You can't possibly be serious. A far-leftist source? It's pink news, not ]. And Pink News is reasonably reliable for LGBT stuff, definitely including the twitter drama of minor online influencers. ] (]) 20:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::seems due inclusion. I would suggest including this myself. suggesting ] is extreme leftist when that is not the consensus of most editors seems wrong. There is no mention about it being leftist in either the listing, and the ] does not indicate any consensus for attributing it.
:::This also is an inappropriate application of ]. fringe is mostly for pseudoscience, alternative medicine, and conspiracy theory topics that are not accepted by the vast majority of the mainstream. ] (]) 20:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Come on, now. I don't think it's automatically fringe just because PinkNews said it—but pretending it's not a leftist organization is disingenuous.


::::If one checks the past , it seems most feel PN should not be a source for whether someone is "transphobic" or "homophobic", but is to be considered reliable mostly in the context of at least not outright ''fabricating'' quotations; the edit request uses—IMO—loaded language in a few bits, and sort of seems to be trying to paint a certain picture in terms of what is quoted & how it is presented (''e.g.'', placing the "lunatic trans activists" quote in the same sentence as "proponent of gender-affirming care" is strange, given that these have no real relation to each other; seems sorta like someone trying a technique—"the compliment sandwich", sort of thing)...
] "Match it for ]" campaign]]
In , ] reverted my addition of this image of Brianna Wu to the article infobox, with the comment '''"Sadly not a useful image, as one doesn't really see her face"'''. Now, while it is correct that the image doesn't show her face very well, and one that did would be better; it is, however, the best free image we have, and as such is a whole lot better than nothing. It does show part of her face, and that she is Caucasian (which, with her last name, might surprise some), pale, rather thin, has long brown straight hair, and wears dresses; all that might not be enough to unambiguously identify her, but it would certainly serve to distinguish between her and most other people <small>(which can be quite useful )</small>; and it shows her contributing to a notable charity event, demonstrating that she is a charitable type and at least a minor celebrity of sorts. As such, I think it is certainly worth the amount of space in the article which it would occupy, and should still be there until we get a better image. Please ]. --] (]) 15:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


::::...but it does appear to largely be using actual quotes from Wu & others (depending on the source for the "criticism from activists" & "policing the entire trans community!" bits); so... I dunno. In any case: seems like some pretty small potatoes, overall.
:No image is better than a bad image, IMO. ] (]) 16:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


::::''''
::I agree. Per ], part of our manual of style: "Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." This very poor image is not how we expect a person's biographical article to be illustrated - we instead expect something similar to a conventional portrait. We should avoid using this borderline-useless image. What's visually pertinent about a person is her face, used to identify her, not individual factoids such as her ethnicity or choice of dress or that she attends charity venues. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
::::] (]) 05:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:On another note, it seems it would be best for us to use images of Brianna from the second half of 2008 on for . . . reasons.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 01:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::The current ] status for PinkNews states it's generally reliable.. The link you posted showed the consensus 4 years ago, and if you scroll down a bit more to the next section, you'll see an RFC someone started, where the close indicates that the broader Misplaced Pages community agreed PinkNews met editorial guidelines we expect.
:::::In general, ] is the main thing, we can't add critical info of Brianna Wu, as it would be undue, unless multiple reliable sources all make note of it. ] (]) 15:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I agree---but I'm <s>angry</s>... ''pleased''* that you've elegantly made a similar-but-better point than the one I had attempted to make, and in about 1/4th the space...
::::::<hr>
::::::{{grey|...unfortunately, I cannot control my logorrhea (help), and so: here's a bunch of nonsense about a minor point re: PN that's not really directly relevant (since, as you point out, the proposed edit falls afoul of other guidelines unrelated to the source at hand); but, y'know, just in case PinkNews becomes a hot topic or something in the near future:}}
::::::<hr>
::::::...I stand by my characterization of PN, though: {{math|29/45}}, or ~65%, of respondents to the RfC ''(counting "Guy Macon's" comment as corresponding to Option 2, and not counting any struck-out comments)'' ended up saying either:
::::::* {{tq|While it's not reliable for speculation about someone's sexual orientation or being LGBT-phobic, it is reliable for quotes from the subject and non-controversial facts.}} ⌁ &nbsp; '''{{maroon|§}}''' &nbsp; <span style="font-family:Georgia;">{{teal| on statements of fact, /use caution when talking about actual people.}}</span>&nbsp;⌁ &nbsp;{{small|''{{grey|}}''}}
::::::...or else:
::::::* {{tq|PinkNews is at this point far less reliable than sources such as the Daily Mail, which have been deprecated.}}&nbsp;⌁ &nbsp; '''{{maroon|§}}''' &nbsp; <span style="font-family:Georgia;">{{teal|(1) it is not reliable for statements about a persons '''' sexuality or their attitudes toward LGBT issues, unless it is a direct quote from the subject, and (2) citations to it should be attributed and have an inline citation.}}</span>&nbsp;⌁ &nbsp;{{small|''{{grey|}}''}}
::::::Many of the remaining 16 respondents ''(i.e., those who chose option #1)'' attribute their choice to the tireless efforts of two especial editors, who seem to have replied to nearly every critical evaluation with some variation of "nuh-uh, all of the criticisms of PinkNews have been debunked!"...
::::::...which, ''I'' think, is vastly over-stating the case; but, more to the point: ''even these two particular editors'' (quite possibly single-... er, double-handedly... responsible for the RfC's "green" outcome!) acknowledge the issues with xyz-phobia accusations & leftward bias re: PN:
::::::* {{tq|FWIW, PinkNews' editorial policy states their political stance and acknowledges how it influences their tone when they report on politicians and other entities they find homophobic. To me, that's actually preferable to a source like Fox or Daily Kos that portrays itself as neutral}}&nbsp;⌁ &nbsp; '''{{maroon|§}}''' &nbsp; <span style="font-family:Georgia;">{{teal|I strongly support adding Guy Macon's qualifier ("requires inline citations for controversial statements, unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality or homophobia other than direct quotes") to the text box.}}</span>&nbsp;⌁
::::::''{{small|(≜ "Armadillopteryx")}}''
::::::* {{tq| conclusion is that it is ''"Hyper-partisan, Liberal"'' because of its "Focus on pro-LGBT message even though underlying story is very loosely related to LGBT issues". ''That last point may be true,'' but ''I would call that "niche"'' rather than "hyper-partisan". Any of our editors should ''know how to read the story with appropriate caveats'' }}&nbsp;⌁
::::::{{small|''(≜ "Newimpartial" {{grey|}};'' emphasis added)}}
::::::<hr>
::::::...and, finally (& perhaps most-importantly), if I may quote the actual entry at ] ''(emphasis added):''
::::::* {{tq|There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, ''but additional considerations'' may apply and ''caution should be used''. Most of those who commented on PinkNews' ''reliability for statements about a person's sexuality'' said that ''such claims had to be based on direct quotes'' from the subject.}}&nbsp;⌁
::::::---which, I think, matches decently well with the wording of my original point.
::::::Now, I can't actually ''remember'' what my original point was (something about PN being not-entirely-reliable & maybe biased, or maybe-not-reliable & entirely biased?), but quite possibly it was pretty good & has now been supported in some way? Well, we can only hope.
::::::Cheers,
::::::] (]) 04:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::If you want to relitigate the PinkNews close or start your own RFC, feel free to on ]. The point of an RFC is not to read through the individual opinions of editors, but for a close that summarizes and aggregates the opinions to identify what the rough community consensus is. the close by MrX is the only pertinent part of the RFC for current consensus. ] (]) 05:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::And indeed, I quoted it!
::::::::] (]) 09:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'm concerned that the article comes across as very anti Brianna Wu, and that in at least one occasion the author significantly misrepresents Wu's comments. In that case, the author writes that Wu stated "some trans people should not be allowed access to female spaces." In checking the linked source, that was not what Wu was saying, or at the very least that simplified account used by the author misrepresents the actual text, and thus I do not think we should be saying that she "has advocated against the rights of some transgender people to enter female spaces." That the author misrepresented her on this point, and perhaps others, makes me very uncomfortable with the claims by the author about things Wu has written where a source is not provided. The other concern is weight. This is a large section to devote an account by a single author, in a single article, that relies almost entirely on quotes drawn from Twitter and Threads. I think I'd rather use a different source than one which has misrepresented the subject, and I'd prefer to rely on more than one source for these claims. - ] (]) 07:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::yeah, ] indicates that for a public figure, we should generally have at least two or more sources to prove dueness of critical information. Can try to look for other sources later, but agree that unless at least 2 sources report, we cannot include. ] (]) 15:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


:The proposed addition seems quite long (and goes into a lot of detail) to be sourced to a single short news article (as opposed to e.g. a major biography covering the matter in great detail, or many different RS covering the matter). Although the source is reliable, I think a shorter summary of just the major point(s) is more likely to be ]; alternatively, a version with this many details could be DUE if they were supported (and given WEIGHT) by enough RS. ] (]) 23:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:Can we have a translation of what that actually means? ] (]) 01:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
::I agree with this: some general idea of Brianna Wu's views here is probably DUE but not this whole paragraph as worded. ] (]) 20:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:This is far too much detail based on one tabloidy source for a BLP. ] (]) 06:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:08, 29 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brianna Wu article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find video game sources: "Brianna Wu" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconBiography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
WikiProject iconVideo games: Indie Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the indie task force.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
WikiProject iconWomen in Red
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red
WikiProject iconUnited States: Massachusetts / West Virginia Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject West Virginia (assessed as Low-importance).
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

Commons-emblem-issue.svgWARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page; any editor who repeatedly or egregiously fails to adhere to applicable policies may be blocked, topic-banned, or otherwise restricted. Note also that editors on this article are subject to a limit of one revert per 24 hours (with exceptions for vandalism or BLP violations). Violation may result in blocks without further warning. Enforcement should be requested at WP:AE.

Also, this Talk page may not be edited by accounts with fewer than 500 edits, or by accounts that are less than 30 days old. Edits made by accounts that do not meet these qualifications may be removed. (Such removals are not subject to any "revert-rule" counting.)

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • For a temporary period, only administrators may edit this page

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article should adhere to the gender identity guideline because it contains material about one or more trans women. Precedence should be given to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, anywhere in article space, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. Some people go by singular they pronouns, which are acceptable for use in articles. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Former, pre-transition names may only be included if the person was notable while using the name; outside of the main biographical article, such names should only appear once, in a footnote or parentheses.If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the LGBTQ+ WikiProject, or, in the case of living people, to the BLP noticeboard.

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2


This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.


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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unreliable sources:

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

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

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

@HadesTTW this isn't really an actionable request in this form. Is there particular wording you would like added to the article? Elli (talk | contribs) 23:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
@Elli How about this sentence in Career, after "She is a trans woman"?
Since the outbreak of the Israel–Hamas war, Wu received media attention for her vocal support of Israel. She has argued in The Boston Globe that "my fellow leftists are betraying our Jewish allies" and "the casual antisemitism I’d looked past in progressive spaces impossible to ignore."
And make sure to add the category "American Zionists." She identifies as such in the first article. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 00:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. Wu, Brianna (2024-09-09). "I fear that progressivism has become the very thing we fought against". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 2024-10-31.
  2. Fink, Rachel (2024-06-02). "Briahna vs Brianna: American Political Pundits Feud on Social Media Over Israel's War Against Hamas". Haaretz.
  3. Abrams, Dan (2024-08-07). "Progressives are blaming Jewish super PAC for losses: Analyst". NewsNation.
  4. Weiss, Bari (2024-10-18). "Brianna Wu Says She Didn't Change. The Progressive Movement Did". The Free Press. Retrieved 2024-10-31.
 Done With a little bit of stylistic reorganisation. Since this is a contentious article, I'd be happy to revert on any disagreement. Happy‑melon 12:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: Category changes

Please remove category ], since this is an article about a person, not a company. I have already added the category to the redirect Giant Spacekat, the company in question.

Please add categories ] and per the previous section, ] and ] and ].

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

Do we have reliable sources that she's against antisemitism or only that she's a zionist? Those two things aren't the same. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
 Done, partially. I removed the video game company category. I don't see how the other categories suggested are valid, possibly the zionist one. See the discussion immediately above, which may shed some light. If sources don't characterize her as zionist or antisemitist, then neither should the category listings. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
From the Free Press article:
"We discuss Israel and why Brianna identifies as a Zionist."
She later explains in the video that she strongly supports Israel and uses the label "Zionist" for herself. She also has identified as such on Twitter.
https://www.thefp.com/p/brianna-wu-bari-weiss-gamergate-progressive-antisemitism-honestly
https://x.com/BriannaWu/status/1794497394626949490
HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 00:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I added the American Zionists category. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 16 November 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I'm requesting:

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

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

@ValarianB. Please explain why this meets WP:FRINGE. Also, WP:PINKNEWS is reliable and I don't see why edit requests can't be made for potentially controversial edits. Badbluebus (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
no. we're not a platform for fringe criticisms, and this template is only to be used to suggest routine, non-controversial edits anyway. ValarianB (talk)
I am not sure how fringe applies here... Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
it is a grouse from a far-leftist source, which is imo the definition of fringe. be that as it may, "Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus" is pretty straightforward and clear. this is not the sort of edit that will be added by mere request, so if you or the OP feel this is worthy of inclusion, then initiate a proper discussion to see if there is consensus to do so. ValarianB (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
As the contents of the edit are all supported by a source that is listed as reliable on RSP, I thought the edit would not be really that controversial. Anyways, I opened a thread on BLPN to see if any consensus can be built on this. I would also advise that you avoid answering fully protected edit requests, since they are supposed to be handled by admins. Badbluebus (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
You can't possibly be serious. A far-leftist source? It's pink news, not Granma. And Pink News is reasonably reliable for LGBT stuff, definitely including the twitter drama of minor online influencers. Simonm223 (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
seems due inclusion. I would suggest including this myself. suggesting WP:PINKNEWS is extreme leftist when that is not the consensus of most editors seems wrong. There is no mention about it being leftist in either the listing, and the RFC does not indicate any consensus for attributing it.
This also is an inappropriate application of WP:FRINGE. fringe is mostly for pseudoscience, alternative medicine, and conspiracy theory topics that are not accepted by the vast majority of the mainstream. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Come on, now. I don't think it's automatically fringe just because PinkNews said it—but pretending it's not a leftist organization is disingenuous.
If one checks the past discussions, it seems most feel PN should not be a source for whether someone is "transphobic" or "homophobic", but is to be considered reliable mostly in the context of at least not outright fabricating quotations; the edit request uses—IMO—loaded language in a few bits, and sort of seems to be trying to paint a certain picture in terms of what is quoted & how it is presented (e.g., placing the "lunatic trans activists" quote in the same sentence as "proponent of gender-affirming care" is strange, given that these have no real relation to each other; seems sorta like someone trying a technique—"the compliment sandwich", sort of thing)...
...but it does appear to largely be using actual quotes from Wu & others (depending on the source for the "criticism from activists" & "policing the entire trans community!" bits); so... I dunno. In any case: seems like some pretty small potatoes, overall.
Himaldrmann (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
The current WP:RSP status for PinkNews states it's generally reliable.. The link you posted showed the consensus 4 years ago, and if you scroll down a bit more to the next section, you'll see an RFC someone started, where the close indicates that the broader Misplaced Pages community agreed PinkNews met editorial guidelines we expect.
In general, WP:PUBLICFIGURE is the main thing, we can't add critical info of Brianna Wu, as it would be undue, unless multiple reliable sources all make note of it. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree---but I'm angry... pleased* that you've elegantly made a similar-but-better point than the one I had attempted to make, and in about 1/4th the space...
...unfortunately, I cannot control my logorrhea (help), and so: here's a bunch of nonsense about a minor point re: PN that's not really directly relevant (since, as you point out, the proposed edit falls afoul of other guidelines unrelated to the source at hand); but, y'know, just in case PinkNews becomes a hot topic or something in the near future:
...I stand by my characterization of PN, though: 29/45, or ~65%, of respondents to the RfC (counting "Guy Macon's" comment as corresponding to Option 2, and not counting any struck-out comments) ended up saying either:
  • While it's not reliable for speculation about someone's sexual orientation or being LGBT-phobic, it is reliable for quotes from the subject and non-controversial facts. ⌁   §   on statements of fact, /use caution when talking about actual people. ⌁  
...or else:
  • PinkNews is at this point far less reliable than sources such as the Daily Mail, which have been deprecated. ⌁   §   (1) it is not reliable for statements about a persons sexuality or their attitudes toward LGBT issues, unless it is a direct quote from the subject, and (2) citations to it should be attributed and have an inline citation. ⌁  
Many of the remaining 16 respondents (i.e., those who chose option #1) attribute their choice to the tireless efforts of two especial editors, who seem to have replied to nearly every critical evaluation with some variation of "nuh-uh, all of the criticisms of PinkNews have been debunked!"...
...which, I think, is vastly over-stating the case; but, more to the point: even these two particular editors (quite possibly single-... er, double-handedly... responsible for the RfC's "green" outcome!) acknowledge the issues with xyz-phobia accusations & leftward bias re: PN:
  • FWIW, PinkNews' editorial policy states their political stance and acknowledges how it influences their tone when they report on politicians and other entities they find homophobic. To me, that's actually preferable to a source like Fox or Daily Kos that portrays itself as neutral ⌁   §   I strongly support adding Guy Macon's qualifier ("requires inline citations for controversial statements, unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality or homophobia other than direct quotes") to the text box. ⌁
(≜ "Armadillopteryx")
  • conclusion is that it is "Hyper-partisan, Liberal" because of its "Focus on pro-LGBT message even though underlying story is very loosely related to LGBT issues". That last point may be true, but I would call that "niche" rather than "hyper-partisan". Any of our editors should know how to read the story with appropriate caveats  ⌁
(≜ "Newimpartial" ; emphasis added)
...and, finally (& perhaps most-importantly), if I may quote the actual entry at WP:PINKNEWS (emphasis added):
  • There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. Most of those who commented on PinkNews' reliability for statements about a person's sexuality said that such claims had to be based on direct quotes from the subject. ⌁
---which, I think, matches decently well with the wording of my original point.
Now, I can't actually remember what my original point was (something about PN being not-entirely-reliable & maybe biased, or maybe-not-reliable & entirely biased?), but quite possibly it was pretty good & has now been supported in some way? Well, we can only hope.
Cheers,
Himaldrmann (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
If you want to relitigate the PinkNews close or start your own RFC, feel free to on WP:RSN. The point of an RFC is not to read through the individual opinions of editors, but for a close that summarizes and aggregates the opinions to identify what the rough community consensus is. the close by MrX is the only pertinent part of the RFC for current consensus. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
And indeed, I quoted it!
Himaldrmann (talk) 09:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the article comes across as very anti Brianna Wu, and that in at least one occasion the author significantly misrepresents Wu's comments. In that case, the author writes that Wu stated "some trans people should not be allowed access to female spaces." In checking the linked source, that was not what Wu was saying, or at the very least that simplified account used by the author misrepresents the actual text, and thus I do not think we should be saying that she "has advocated against the rights of some transgender people to enter female spaces." That the author misrepresented her on this point, and perhaps others, makes me very uncomfortable with the claims by the author about things Wu has written where a source is not provided. The other concern is weight. This is a large section to devote an account by a single author, in a single article, that relies almost entirely on quotes drawn from Twitter and Threads. I think I'd rather use a different source than one which has misrepresented the subject, and I'd prefer to rely on more than one source for these claims. - Bilby (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
yeah, WP:PUBLICFIGURE indicates that for a public figure, we should generally have at least two or more sources to prove dueness of critical information. Can try to look for other sources later, but agree that unless at least 2 sources report, we cannot include. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
The proposed addition seems quite long (and goes into a lot of detail) to be sourced to a single short news article (as opposed to e.g. a major biography covering the matter in great detail, or many different RS covering the matter). Although the source is reliable, I think a shorter summary of just the major point(s) is more likely to be WP:DUE; alternatively, a version with this many details could be DUE if they were supported (and given WEIGHT) by enough RS. -sche (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree with this: some general idea of Brianna Wu's views here is probably DUE but not this whole paragraph as worded. Loki (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
This is far too much detail based on one tabloidy source for a BLP. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: