Content deleted Content added
→No: Reply |
→RfC: Should Asmongold's full name be included in the article?: closing - no consensus |
||
| (58 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
Line 133:
=== RfC: Should Asmongold's full name be included in the article? ===
{{Closed rfc top|1=There is '''no consensus''' in this discussion as to whether Asmongold's full name should be included. This defaults to '''not include''' as it was the status quo prior to this RFC being started.{{pb}}Numerically, there is a very slight advantage to those supporting inclusion, but it is close enough where the strength of the arguments needs to be assessed. The "include" camp primarily argued that Asmongold is a public individual and that there are multiple sources that give his full name. The "exclude" camp countered with multiple examples where Asmongold indicated that he did not wish to have his full name published for privacy reasons; in fact, there were almost as many examples of this than there were sources that included the full name.{{pb}}When it comes down to close discussions such as this, we must look at the existing policies and how they factor into the situation. In this case, [[WP:BLPPRIVACY]] is the primary policy section to look at. Based on the discussion below and evidence provided, it cannot be demonstrably proved that the second sentence ({{tq|widely published by reliable sources ...[or] the subject does not object to the details being made public}}) of this section has been met, meaning the slight numerical majority in the inclusion camp is brought down to parity with the exclusion camp, but I do not think is is reasonable to say that it completely overrules (since, as clearly has been indicated, there ''are'' published sources with his full name included). Since the original opinion was to exclude the name for privacy concerns, a no consensus close here returns us to that status quo. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 12:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)}}
see discussion above. Should Asmongold's full name be included in the article? 23:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Line 200 ⟶ 199:
*'''Include''' Someone's name is key biographical infomation for a biography page. A range of [[WP:RS]] have reported his first name and surname. Wikipedia is not [[WP:NOTCENSORED]], and I do not see any [[WP:BLPPRIVACY]] issues considering his name has been published many times now by reliable secondary sources. Thus, it should be included. Regards [[User:Spy-cicle|<span style='color: 4019FF;'><b> Spy-cicle💥 </b></span>]] [[User talk:Spy-cicle#top|<sup><span style='color: #1e1e1e;'><b>'''''Talk'''''?</b></span></sup>]] 04:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Include''', reliably sourced and public information.--[[User:Ortizesp|Ortizesp]] ([[User talk:Ortizesp|talk]]) 12:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Weak include''' because this is a public figure whose name is already at least {{em|fairly}} "widely published by reliable sources", but it's not {{em|tremendously}} widely. We don't have an official source-count cutoff point, and it's left to editorial consensus discretion. Given the amount of extant off-site publication of the surname, a privacy argument is already dead-in-the-water. This isn't a trans/enby deadnaming situation either, so it's difficult to think of a reason to suppress this. The subject perhaps now wishing they'd taken more steps to hide their legal-name details, back when, and in at least one or another cases belatedly raising a privacy claim, just isn't very convincing. The horse has already left the barn. That said, the sky will not fall if WP excludes the name, though doing it is an empty gesture since it's so widely available offsite. WP looking "incomplete" on the subject by leaving it off, though, is a minor concern at best, since WP is incomplete on pretty much everything, and our readers already know that. I do really have to wonder why this article exists. This does not appear to be an encyclopedic subject at all, but yet another "random schmoe who monetizes online chit-chat about video games". Someone's "better there should be no article" comment rings loud for me. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 06:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
::{{tq|This does not appear to be an encyclopedic subject at all, but yet another "random schmoe who monetizes online chit-chat about video games". }} Asmon's view counts on YouTube alone almost always surpass numbers of views for outlets like CNN. His videos routinely achive one million views. Try to imagine the size of that: consider the size of a football stadium. Holds about 60K. Asmon routinely pulls DOZENS OF TIMES that number of viewers. He gets about $10K ''per video'' from YouTube monitization. He OBVIOUSLY deserves an article, and I can only hope you were being hyperbolic and not sincere in your questioning the viability of this article. [[User:Marcus Markup|Marcus Markup]] ([[User talk:Marcus Markup|talk]]) 09:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
::And he also talks about a whole lot more than just 'video games'. Just for the record. I think that fact goes a long way towards explaining a lot of the animosity he is facing. That he has a loud voice, is unafraid of using it, and is relatively uninhibited, [[User:Marcus Markup|Marcus Markup]] ([[User talk:Marcus Markup|talk]]) 09:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
:::One person has called him a "random schmoe who monetizes online chit-chat about video games" - what "lot of animosity"? [[User:Pinkbeast|Pinkbeast]] ([[User talk:Pinkbeast|talk]]) 18:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Include''' It is public information that is in a variety of [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. For purposes of neutrality, an encyclopedia must be able to represent the sources. [[User:Symphony Regalia|Symphony Regalia]] ([[User talk:Symphony Regalia|talk]]) 04:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
::Wikipedia has higher standards for inclusion of a thing, rather it's just being "public information". We are (or rather, should be) leaders in the protection of personal privacy, and not followers. [[User:Marcus Markup|Marcus Markup]] ([[User talk:Marcus Markup|talk]]) 09:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Include''' Hey folks. If a country wants us to remove the name of their leader to protect his privacy, and replace all instances of his name "Kim Jong Un" with their preferred pen name for English websites, a choice between "LuvKorea01" or "Leader of North Korea", do we do it? It's the same exact thing. Well that's different, he's a politician! Okay okay, so politicians are excluded... but other public figures are allowed. That works. Hey guys this Sheriff shot someone the other day, and now he wants his name removed from Wikipedia. Well that makes sense, his privacy his important. Wait turns out he hunted someone down and murdered them? Oops, good thing Wikipedia editors let him remove his name. Hey guys the CEO of this oil company just got caught dumping toxins into the water supply of a town, he wants his name removed <s>so people will forget easier when it gets buried under other news and scandals and he becomes CEO of another company</s> to protect his privacy. Do... wait. Are you sure we're not just censoring information on the behalf of powerful people? Of course not. Do it! Hey guys this celebrity is complaining that he doesn't qualify for censorship rights while these other celebrities do? He says the cut-off threshold isn't fair. Uhh, let random Wikipedia editors decide! That won't be a biased mess at all. Hey guys public figures are now asking for the right to remove relationship details, past employment, as well as anything that could cause them reputational harm. [[User:AfricanKingFono|AfricanKingFono]] ([[User talk:AfricanKingFono|talk]]) 07:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)<small>— [[User:AfricanKingFono|AfricanKingFono]] ([[User talk:AfricanKingFono|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AfricanKingFono|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
::Editor is a [[WP:SPA]] and besides having no understanding of Wikipedia policy or what a 'public figure' is, they have registered only to !vote here. Their making a gratuitous edit to their user page so they don't look red here causes me to believe they are also a sock.[[User:Marcus Markup|Marcus Markup]] ([[User talk:Marcus Markup|talk]]) 11:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I tagged their signature, and agree they are probably a sock.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 17:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Can we get a [[WP:CHK]]? or is CU overkill? [[User:Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: red; font-family: Comic Sans MS;">Babysharkboss2!!</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Babysharkboss2|<span style="color:brown">No Life 'Til Leather</span>]])</sup> 17:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Just lurking, but IMO I gotta say you are the one with no understanding of Wikipedia or even reality if you think Asmongold is not a public figure. A public figure is someone who "has achieved fame, prominence or notoriety within a society, whether through achievement, luck, action, or in some cases through no purposeful action of their own".
:::It was mentioned that he regularly gets more views than news channels. "Asmongold" is very clearly a public figure! [[Special:Contributions/218.164.5.179|218.164.5.179]] ([[User talk:218.164.5.179|talk]]) 12:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
====No====
Line 237 ⟶ 248:
*'''Exclude''' — I find the BLP privacy concerns and the concerns around the reliability of sources that include the full name both convincing rationale for excluding. Given that the subject isn't notable under their real name, it's not essential information for the article. Many reliable sources (e.g. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2022/12/06/trainwrecks-kick-gambling-stake/ The Washington Post], [https://kotaku.com/popular-wow-streamer-hires-youtubers-who-leeched-off-hi-1840377137 Kotaku]) are not using a full name in their coverage. [[User:Dylnuge|<span style="color: #1e79a1;font-weight:700;">Dylnuge</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Dylnuge|''Talk'']] • [[Special:Contributions/Dylnuge|''Edits'']])</sup> 18:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Exclude''' — the subject of this BLP has made it abundantly clear that he does not provide his full name due to [https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2021/08/09/activision-blizzard-asmongold-content-creators/ safety concerns] and [https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/reviews/elden-ring-lost-ark/ privacy] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2022/06/08/asmongold-wow-notorious-blizzard/ reasons]. [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|Biographies of living persons]] mandates that we take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, and that biographies of living persons ''must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy'', so the presumption here is to exclude in favor of safety and privacy concerns.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 12:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
:*If he's so bloody concerned about safety and privacy, why is his picture posted here? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 23:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
:*:He shows his face when streaming. What's your point? [[User:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #000000">'''TarkusAB'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #aa0000">'''talk'''</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/TarkusAB|<span style="color: #aa0000">'''contrib'''</span>]]</sup> 00:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
::*That his alleged concern about safety is nothing but hype, and you're buying into it. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 02:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
::*:Someone's face does not give you the ability to search public records for information such as their contact details, address, family members, etc. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | [[User:berchanhimez|me]] | [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 09:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Exclude''' per my understanding of [[WP:BLPNAME]] which states {{tq|When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed... it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context}} and [[WP:BLPPRIVACY]] {{tq|The standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified}}. He has said in interviews linked above that he doesn't want to share his last name for privacy reasons. [[WP:BLP]] suggests erring on the side of privacy. If Asmongold actively refrains from giving his full name, that's intentionally concealing it, no? <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 01:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
:*Are you saying that he's ''not'' a public figure? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 16:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
:*:That people scraped the internet and publicized it against his wishes is not grounds for inclusion. An argument "they can find it elsewhere" isn't a policy-based argument for inclusion. You can find a lot of identifiable informaiton about people elsewhere that is inappropriate for inclusion. Notably, "private individual" does not read to me in [[WP:BLP]] as being a non-public figure, the terminology used for such people has been [[WP:LOWPROFILE]] and Non-public figure. Per [[WP:BLPPRIVACY]] {{tq|'''<u>many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private</u>'''. 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 '''<u>it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public</u>'''}}. The basis of inclusion is an inferrence that the subject does not object to the details being made public. This subject, however, doth protest. That is to say, Asmongold has expressed an objection to having his full name publicized. That there are a handful of articles out of hundreds which use his full name is not adequate grounds to ignore his objection or inferr that he does not object when he has expressly objected. [[WP:CENSORSHIP]] does not apply, and your non-policy arguments about it making {{tq| wikipedia look stupid}} also do not apply. <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 17:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
:*::What exactly does "private" individual mean? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 18:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
:*:::I am not here to pointlessly and meanderingly argue definitions with you. Policy is clear. {{tq|Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth...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 to the details being made public}}. '''''It may not be reasonably inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. The subject has notably objected to the making of the information public for privacy reasons.''''' You are not making an argument related to policy. Nothing about [[WP:BLPPUBLIC]] implies that it trumps [[WP:BLPPRIVACY]], nor does [[WP:BLPPUBLIC]] demand or necessitate including his full name. Again {{tq|'''The standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified'''}} <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 18:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
:*::::OK, so how does ''policy'' define the term "private" individual? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 18:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
====Discussion====
For the avoidance of doubt I've read what {{u|Isaidnoway}} uncovered and while it is interesting it has not changed my opinion. We can be reasonably sure it's not citogenesis, his name is literally just out there (so in fact the supposed safety and privacy concerns are minimal given a hypothetical bad actor could just look it up) and as a public figure he must expect that - we should include it. [[User:Pinkbeast|Pinkbeast]] ([[User talk:Pinkbeast|talk]]) 23:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:He expected ''The Washington Post'' to respect his safety and privacy concerns when they asked for his full name, and they respected his concerns, despite the fact they knew he was a public figure and could have published his full name anyway, because it is "literally just out there". And this is not about hypothetical bad actors we have no control over, this is about information ''we do have control over'' when the subject of a BLP has requested his full name not be published due to safety and privacy concerns, as reported by reliable sources. Just because there are some sources out there that don't respect his concerns, doesn't automatically mean we have to do the same. We write BLPs in a conservative manner and err on the side of caution.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 04:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::Aside from that specific interview with the WaPo, where has he explicitly said he doesn't want his name known? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 13:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::I really don't see that safety and privacy concerns can pertain to publishing something which it is already trivial to find out. I would prefer, for privacy reasons, that the entire world does not know my telephone number - but if Googling "Pinkbeast telephone number" serves it up as the first hit, that ship has sailed and I am not appreciably harmed by someone else publishing it. [[User:Pinkbeast|Pinkbeast]] ([[User talk:Pinkbeast|talk]]) 13:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::The point is, multiple reliable sources have reported he does not want his full name to be known. Our [[WO:BLP|policy]] says - ''Wikipedia includes full names that have been widely published by reliable sources, such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public .... the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source''.
:::So in this case, we can reasonably infer that the subject '''does object''' to his full name being known, because that is what has been reported by multiple published reliable sources. Our standard for inclusion for his full name is higher than the mere existence of a source found through a Google search. And what I don't see in our policy is - in cases where it's "already trivial to find out", then yeah, go ahead and include it.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 09:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
:{{tq|as a public figure he must expect that}} The term "public figure" in United States privacy law has specific meaning and is a high bar to clear, see [[Public_figure#United_States]]. It generally includes policy makers (e.g. politicians), activists, and celebrities... celebrities at the Paris Hilton or Tom Cruise level, not Asmongold level. [[User:Marcus Markup|Marcus Markup]] ([[User talk:Marcus Markup|talk]]) 04:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::I was not discussing US privacy law, but the more general concept of a public figure. If you have a specific reason to think publishing Hoyt's name would be illegal, please state it clearly; otherwise, I don't see that US law is particularly relevant. [[User:Pinkbeast|Pinkbeast]] ([[User talk:Pinkbeast|talk]]) 12:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::The phrase 'public figure' has specific meaning in privacy contexts when dealing with American subjects in publishing (which was the case here). Thank you for clarifying that you were being casual in your choice of wording. [[User:Marcus Markup|Marcus Markup]] ([[User talk:Marcus Markup|talk]]) 13:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::It has that meaning in the US courts, where we are not. I'm not "being casual", I'm just under no obligation whatsoever to use an expression in the sense the legal system of a country I'm not in uses it. (I wonder if this "reply" button gets the indents right?) [[User:Pinkbeast|Pinkbeast]] ([[User talk:Pinkbeast|talk]]) 14:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|If you have a specific reason to think publishing Hoyt's name would be illegal, please state it clearly}}. Nobody is questioning the legality or illegality of posting Asmon's actual name here... I'm not sure you understand the issue, quite seriously. Re my opinion, I've already said it and won't repeat it here. [[User:Marcus Markup|Marcus Markup]] ([[User talk:Marcus Markup|talk]]) 13:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::OK, then I don't see that US law is relevant. As you point out, his streams get a million views. That's a public figure. [[User:Pinkbeast|Pinkbeast]] ([[User talk:Pinkbeast|talk]]) 14:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
'''Comment.''' It would be better to discuss this issue within [[WP:BLP]] (or wherever one is supposed to discuss changes to [[WP:BLP]]) to make the policy itself more clear. I think the current policy is not clear here so I won't give an opinion.
Currently the PLB page has multiple shortcuts to different sections talking about names: [[WP:BLPPRIVACY]] and [[WP:BLPNAME]], and these sections seem to say different things. From BLPNAME: "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals ''who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event'' (emphasis added)." So BLPNAME actually implies that people who are discussed in more than a single event have less claim for privacy, and only looking at BLPNAME I would say to include the name without a doubt. [[WP:BLPPRIVACY]], however, mentions that only if a name has been published by multiple reliable sources should it be included. It also seems from BLPPRIVACY, however, that DOB is more of a privacy issue than names. For example, from later in BLPPRIVACY: "If a subject ''complains about our inclusion of their '''date of birth''''', or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it (emphasis added)." Here, only DOB is mentioned, and the shortcut to this is [[WP:DOB]]. Other policies say that privacy is important but do not address the naming issue as directly. Beyond the difference just mentioned, these shortcuts give different barometers for what allows Wikipedia to publish a name: BLPNAME mentions a name being "widely disseminated" as a criteria for inclusion, assuming the person in question does not object, while BLPPRIVACY lists "widely published by reliable sources" as a criteria. This seems strange as it implies that inclusion criteria for non public figures (using the terms broadly) is actually lower than for public figures, as a name only needs to be "widely disseminated" to include it for those involved in single events, while for public figures it must be "widely published by reliable sources." [[User:J2UDY7r00CRjH|J2UDY7r00CRjH]] ([[User talk:J2UDY7r00CRjH|talk]]) 17:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
{{closed rfc bottom}}
== Legacy section is not neutral ==
| |||