Jump to content

Talk:Asmongold

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

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

[edit]

classic launch 26 august 2019 84.217.14.32 (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021 (2)

[edit]

[removed] is [removed] years old and was born on [removed] OnWelfare (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I provide the related material it will reveal sensitive information, such as address, Mother and fathers names and potential phone numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnWelfare (talk • contribs) 23:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@OnWelfare: Okay, then you can't post that here on a public talk page. If you want to share information privately, you can send me a message through Special:EmailUser/Gaioa. Gaioa (T C L) 08:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2021

[edit]
 Not done: Not relevant enough for inclusion, external links usually only go to official sites of the person/IMDb pages etc — IVORK Talk 05:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Accessible edits that contain personal information

[edit]

Those edits that contain Asmongold's personal information are somehow still accessible, and I don't know why. They've been accessible for months, and I don't know why they haven't been removed yet. L33tm4n (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2022

[edit]

The Hyperlink for the game “New world” in the info box directs to the page for the name given to the Americas and the Caribbean instead of the video game “New world”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_(video_game) 216.195.175.229 (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article protected

[edit]

This article is full-protected for 10 days due to a content dispute. Work it out on the talk page. You can make edit requests for noncontroversial changes. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page is getting vandalized again with one user in particular posting the same information. Could the page be protected again or somebody reach a conclusion based on the below discussion? SturmFernmelder (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just semi-protected it for BLP violations. No consensus has been reached below to include the information. —C.Fred (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for subject's name

[edit]

This article from Dexerto could be a reasonable source. There aren't a lot of esports-focused reliable sources that I know of, but this one at least outlines it's editorial policies. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a recent article and could have used the Wikipedia information as a source, as at the time the name was available (article is dated February 18 and name was posted to wiki on February 18 using the old source). Asmongold has historically been very outspoken about wanting to be private and not wanting his personal information be shared online, and other than his first name Zack, no information has been made public. Unless we know where this information came from, it shouldn't be used in order not to doxx the person, especially since the person clearly does not want this information be public. SturmFernmelder (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)— SturmFernmelder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Whether the source is reliable or unreliable, Asmongold has always been a very private individual and is very intentional about not wanting his last name and other personal identifiers to be accessible. We're trying to uphold his desire for privacy by keeping relevant information off this wiki. MageTea (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC) — MageTea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I'm not aware of an Wikipedia policy that allows for subjects of articles to dictate what information is or isn't included within the article. There are plenty of articles where the subject would prefer information not shared, especially those which cause controversy, but their personal feelings on the matter don't have an impact. As long as there is a reliable source for the information and it's relevant to the article, it can be added.Skipple ☎ 19:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The name has been used without Asmon's permission, it's not in the public's interest to know his last name, he has not made his last name publicly available, the last name is not relevant to the story as he only goes by his username and first name and that the use of the full name is unwarranted and will have chances of causing harm to him. Multiple news sites, including Dexerto have been contacted and they have edited to remove the name as they realized the name is not relevant to the story and that it will cause more harm than good. Additionally, there is currently not a reliable source that is showing his name and none that has acknowledged how they have obtained the name. Doxxing is a serious matter and not something that should be dealt lightly with, especially if said "news" article use Wikipedia as their source and simply create a circular reference. SturmFernmelder (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posthumously I would agree with you. However, when speaking of a live subject there are potential real life consequences to having information such as a full name readily accessible on the internet.
In official capacity on behalf of Asmongold, He has not publicly shared what his last name is and desires for it to remain private. Below I have linked to two areas in Wikipedia policy that that would imply they would respect the personal wishes of a living person that an article exists for. We have also direct him to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight so hopefully this will not come up again in the future.
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help#:~:text=Anyone may remove biographical material about living persons that is unsourced, poorly-sourced, or otherwise inappropriate. Editors may take an article subject's wishes into account, and regularly do in cases of borderline notability.
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#:~:text=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 to the details being made public. MageTea (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[redacted] are both Twitch and Reddit Mods for Asmongold.
It is obvious they have a vested interest protecting Asmongold from any controversies, but Asmongold's personal name (redact) has been shared by many articles internationally, these are only a few of the most reputable I could find:
[dotesports.com] Who is Asmongold? Everything to know about Twitch’s MMO king
[levelup.com] REPORTE: 99% de los streamers más populares de Twitch y YouTube son hombres
[sportskeeda.com] Why did Asmongold change his name? 89.105.219.165 (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dotesports is a reliable source per WP:VG/RS. This should satisfy any concerns about reliability of this information. This information is now public and any feelings the subject has on this should bring it up with the publishing site. The name of an individual does not violate WP:BLP and is basic information about the subject. Skipple ☎ 02:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So do you feel that even with what is stated in the Wikipedia policy, linked below, and with considering that Asmongold does not want his full name public, that his objection is not enough to omit this information? The policy calls for it to be reasonably inferred that the subject does not object to the inclusion of information such as a full name. I do not believe this can be reasonably inferred.
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#:~:text=With identity theft,being made public. MageTea (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are referring to the following statement:

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 to the details being made public.

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on this statement, but it would appear to me that dotesports reference would satisfy the former part of that statement is it is published by a reliable source thus making the subject's objection to be irrelevant, but there certainly could be other interpretations. I believe looping in WP:BLP might be the best course of action at this point as they might have a better understanding of standards for this case.Skipple ☎ 04:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the key word "widely". One source is not sufficient. Notch being Marcus Pearson is widely published, as an example. Masem (t) 21:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To add to it, Dexerto has updated its news article to remove the name. SturmFernmelder (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, Dexerto is considered to be an unreliable source per WP:VGRS. – Pbrks (t • c) 04:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an easy one. The relevant word is "widely" reported. I think there is no question his first name is public. There is no attempt to hide it. As to the last name, dotesports initially had this as a slam-dunk to include. It's an interview with a profile. However, the birthday is listed as unknown, which implies he did not provide the information in the profile. As a Google search of only subject's name does not make the connection obvious, I would say exclude for now. Anyone wanting the real name can find it, but the burden here is "widely available" and that has not been met nor any evidence provided they have released the information themselves. Slywriter (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While if Asmongold were just a random person, he would be able to say that his name should not be mentioned on Wikipedia citing WP:BLPNAME, he is considered a very clear WP:PUBLICFIGURE, not a random person. Because of this, I do not believe he can say any longer that his name is irrelevant for the purposes of the article. If the name appears in a WP:RS, then it is "fair game" to put in the article - articles simply report what reliable sources say without censorship. While privacy is of course important, if someone really wanted to find Asmongold's name, a simple Google search will lead them to DotEsports regardless, so the cat's out of the bag. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest re-reading and maybe exploring WP:BLPN as that is decidedly not how the community interprets. We do not include a name just because a single reliable source says it. That's not widely. And the Google search takes effort. Someone who knows him privately may have no clue of his online identity and a simple search wouldn't reveal the online identity to them. BLP is one area where WP:NOTCENSORED is not a counter. The community knows BLP policies engage in censorship and accepts as a necessary evil. Slywriter (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also have to !vote exclude here for now. I agree with Slywriter above, that the key term is "widely." In searching both of the reliable custom search and the situational one, the only article that comes up with his full name is the Dot Esports piece. There's nothing else. Books refer to him by his username even in sentences where other people are identified by name ([1]). Nomader (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking exclude it too. I smell citogenesis. casualdejekyll 12:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name again

[edit]

For a while, this source was used for his name:

  • Pequeño IV, Antonio (June 6, 2023). "Twitch Hit With Backlash And Boycott Threats—As Streamers Say New Rules Threaten Their Income". Forbes. Archived from the original on June 7, 2023. Retrieved April 27, 2024.

This is from a Forbes staff member, so is not WP:FORBESCON. Combined with the Dot eSports article linked above, this suggests that there are now multiple reliable sources which treat this as basic information.

Names are basic to any biography article, so if there is still a reason not to use his name, we should discuss it. Grayfell (talk) 06:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_personal_information_and_using_primary_sources

"When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it."

I think the spirit of Wikipedia's policy on privacy of personal information supports the exclusion of a person's alleged name that has never used it and only goes by an alias for privacy reasons. The sources used to show what his name are not reliable. They are not anything but cookie cutter articles that have sourced that name from probably here on Wikipedia and other similar unreliable sources. There seems to be an effort here to dox this individual who has never once shared his full name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.235.243 (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Forbes article and the DotEsports articles appear to be reliable sources per Wikipedia's definition.
Doxing is not my intent. Generally, readers of an encyclopedia article are going to want to know someone's name. While streamers often use pseudonyms, it's very unusual for someone know as a reputable business owner to use a pseudonym. As the co-owner of Starforge Systems and One True King, this is starting to become a matter of public interest for business reasons.
Well, there's no urgency, and I'm fine leaving it out for now. If more reliable sources mention this it will probably end up here sooner or later. Grayfell (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there have been some overly defensive edits being made about the name here.
There are at least two valid, reliable sources that have published his name (Dot eSports and Forbes staff). Worse still, his name is public record as a shareholder in multiple companies (OTK, Starforge). Being that he is very openly an owner of both, and both articles are considered from reliable sources, I'm not entirely sure that any of this is a valid discussion any more. I understand that Asmon/Zack is generally private about his personal life, but when you've pushed yourself as a public figure for this long, and have state and federal information freely available via FOIP requests, it's kind of a mooted point. His information is publicly available from sources, any removal of the name at this point is defensive editing. Worse still, while I certainly can't prove it, and accusations without proof are exactly that, I can't help but think that the people so vehemently against this are biased fans.
I recognize the desire for privacy, but quite unfortunately, if you've chosen a job as a public figure, you have to accept that some of your basic details are going to be publicly available. In fact, I'd argue that as the owner or co-owner of multiple companies that trade with the public, his details SHOULD be available.
I've done some more research, and here are more articles from sources considered reliable, per Wikipedia:VG/RS
https://www.gamesradar.com/twitch-streamers-up-in-arms-as-new-advertising-rules-limit-sponsors-and-threaten-to-kill-charity-and-esports-events/ (GamesRadar is a valid source per VG/RS)
https://dotesports.com/streaming/news/who-is-asmongold-everything-to-know-about-twitch-mmo-king (Dot eSports is a valid source per VG/RS)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2023/06/06/twitch-hit-with-backlash-and-boycott-threats-as-streamers-say-new-rules-threaten-their-income/ (Forbes Staff, not Forbes Contributor, thereby valid)
Not convinced this needs to be an argument. There needs to be a balance between privacy and public knowledge. I'm personally of the opinion that when Zack/Asmon went from being "just" a streamer to also being a business owner, his information should be more available.
--Toxictaru (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not somebody's information is public record is irrelevant, just like property tax records or vehicle records which are also public record, cannot be used as sources or an argument for inclusion.
Additionally, "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 to the details being made public." Considering the amount of news being publishes about Asmongold, this is nowhere near "widely" SturmFernmelder (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we might now usefully revisit it. Plainly, his name is common knowledge (it even appears elsewhere on Wikipedia). It is widely reported (the argument above that it is not widely reported relative to the amount of other coverage is completely spurious - it would tend to apply to anyone who routinely uses a pseudonym). It's not a deadname. It should obviously appear in the article; that some of his fans argue against it here is not a reason to leave it out.
https://www.creatorhandbook.net/will-twitchs-new-ad-policies-kill-the-platform/ has it. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While you argue that Asmongold's name is "common knowledge" and appears elsewhere on Wikipedia, this does not meet the standard set by Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy. BLP states, "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 to the details being made public." In this case, Asmongold's full name has not been widely disseminated by reliable sources, and he has actively worked to maintain his privacy. SturmFernmelder (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, there are three reliable sources, linked above, which have published Hoyt's full name within vastly different contexts. (GamesRadar, DotESports, Forbes) Asmongold's name is Zack Hoyt. It's reported by multiple sources. This clearly demonstrates publicly known information and should be included within the article. I'm not sure how there is any debate at this point. This is a matter of fact. Hoyt's feelings on the matter are, frankly, irrelevant. - Skipple ☎ 15:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While there are three sources that have mentioned Asmongold’s full name, the BLP policy requires that personal information be "widely published by reliable sources." Three isolated sources are not enough to meet the threshold for wide dissemination, especially when the subject has actively worked to keep his full name private. Aditionally, the BLP policy emphasizes that "the privacy of living individuals must be respected," particularly when they have made efforts to conceal certain information. In Asmongold's case, although some reliable sources have mentioned his name, it is not widely published to the extent that the policy requires for inclusion, and his active attempts to keep his full name private should be considered. BLP's priority is to prevent potential harm to living individuals, even if certain details are publicly available in a limited context. In this context the inclusion of his full name remains inappropriate under current policy guidelines. SturmFernmelder (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would he be in danger? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They literally use their name on twitter, "Zack @Asmongold". That doesn't come across as someone trying to hide their name. If their full name is published in reliable sources then it's a non-issue. Polyamorph (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the concern was never about the use of "Zack"—that name has always been part of his public persona as evident by his social media handles. The issue lies specifically with the use of his full name. The use of "Zack" does not equate to revealing his full identity, and there is a clear distinction between partial and full disclosure of personal information. His full name is not prominently or widely used, and the absence of his full name on his official platforms suggests a continued effort to maintain that layer of privacy. SturmFernmelder (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that, my point being if you willingly use your first name you have already revealed 50% of your full name. So hardly consistent with "actively" concealing their identity.Polyamorph (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a poor misconstrual of the argument. Revealing a first name is much much less identifying than 50%. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is "actively" concealing their identity, they would reveal neither their first or last name. Polyamorph (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Plenty of people give comment to reporters with first names only. That's just as active at concealing the important part of your name while still allowing yourself to be referred to. I don't think it's productive to split hairs on this. It's clear that this person wishes to conceal his last name (see Isaidnoway's source review below) and we can leave it at that. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saw this on AN. That board's not for content supports so I'll ask further here: what specifically are his active attempts to keep his full name private? Frankly, I'm in favor of the full name being included, but if you have something more substantial than simple assertion, you may very well convince me, along with others here, which seem to be generally in favor as well. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Content disputes? I'm not sure why I said content supports. Well, other than getting old. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that deleting the article would fix everything. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asmongold does not use his full name on any of his public platforms, including his social media, streams, and business-related activities. His full name is not displayed on any official sites, profiles, or communication linked to him. This ongoing effort to maintain his pseudonym as his public identity is a clear attempt to protect his privacy. The fact that his full name is rarely mentioned in reliable sources further supports this. I hope this context helps to clarify the situation. SturmFernmelder (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You specifically said active attempts. None of these are active attempts. There's a massive difference between not publicizing your name and actively attempting to prevent the publicing of your name, especially when the person is widely known by a pseudonym. You suggested the latter, which does not appear to be the case. Hulk Hogan doesn't talk about his name being Terry Bollea anywhere, nor does Martin Sheen refer to himself publicly as Ramón Estévez. That doesn't make including this information a BLP violation.
Since there's nothing solid here to weigh against it, I will add my voice to the chorus here that based on the sourcing, I feel including his name is appropriate. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, User:SturmFernmelder is related to Asmongold in some way (either personally or professionally). They seem to be claiming that Asmongold does not wish their full name to be public. As such, we should be beginning this from the presumption of keeping it private. Obviously that presumption can be overcome - but the question is if that will happen here. I am curious if the user who appears to have contact with Asmongold can comment on how/why the three sources identified (so far) have published his full name. Did he give them interviews/agree to be reported on without them getting his permission to publish his full name or something? Has he previously been okay with his full name being used in news/media, but is now not? The answer to this question (of how his name has been published) will influence how we should handle it.
We presume privacy if the name is not helpful and useful encyclopedically. I performed a quick Google search for his name - and I can't find anything that would actually lead me to believe that the full name is very important to be able to understand. So if the answer to the question above is that he hasn't given the sources permission to publish his full name, there is virtually nothing lost by excluding it. The information available about the subject in reliable sources (and elsewhere online) is under their pseudonym primarily. And if there are only three sources that can be found that have published the real name, we should err on the side of their preference and not include it, in my opinion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should presume that Asmongold is related in some way to SturmFernmelder, at least in regard to Asmongold's wishes, unless SturmFernmelder states that they do have a COI, something that they have explicitly denied thus far. Thus, we have no basis of a claim that the subject doesn't want their name to be public. I grant you that, in and of itself, that doesn't mean we should by default include the name, but I'd argue the hurdle for including it is lowered in the absence of evidence that they want it concealed. I think there are enough reliable sources that use the name (see below) that we can default to using it; even if other sources widely use his pseudonym that doesn't mean we don't use it, see another editor's example of Martin Sheen above. Those RSs are using their own COMMONNAME policies, more or less, but not necessarily intentionally avoiding the name. Bestagon ⬡ 00:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had written this before those additional sources are found. I maintain that there is not really a clear encyclopedic purpose in including the real name when they are not notable nor reported on under their real name - but given how widely it has been reported, the presumption that Asmongold is trying to keep it private will be extremely difficult to overcome. I pinged the user here because if they really do purport to know that Asmongold wants it to be private, some proof of that is about the only reason that it would need to be strongly considered to not include. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should Asmongold's full name be included in the article?

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
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.
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.
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 (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. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see discussion above. Should Asmongold's full name be included in the article? 23:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes

[edit]
  • Yes, it's public[2]. The subject is of course free to purge his real name from his social media accounts, but here is an encyclopaedia. — kashmīrī TALK 22:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the top of this page, it clearly states that "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." The BLP policy emphasizes the presumption in favor of privacy, particularly when the subject has not widely published their full name. In Asmongold's case, while his first name and pseudonym are public, his full name has not been widely published by reliable sources, only by a select few. SturmFernmelder (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC) — SturmFernmelder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Your point has been well make numerous times on this talk page and thread. I would gently advise reviewing the article on avoiding bludgeoning the process. - Skipple ☎ 01:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. It's covered in multiple RSs (listed in multiple sections above), and contrary to what some claim there doesn't appear to be any explicit attempt by the subject to conceal his name, so there's really no policy-based reason to break from precedent. Bestagon ⬡ 23:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, here are some sources found on Google:
Of the sources listed, only Forbes, ABC Australia, GamesRadar, and VentureBeat are considered reliable according to the guidelines at Wikipedia
Video games/Sources.
Forbes has published at least 15 articles mentioning Asmongold, but only two articles (dated June 6 and June 7, 2023) actually reference a name. This limited coverage does not meet the threshold of being "widely published."
The link to ABC Australia does not direct to any content mentioning a name.
GamesRadar has mentioned Asmongold in at least five articles, but only one of those (dated June 6, 2023) includes a name. This also falls short of being considered "widely published."
VentureBeat has similarly mentioned Asmongold in at least five articles, with only one reference to a name (June 10, 2023). Again, this does not qualify as "widely published."
Given that there are hundreds of news articles related to Asmongold, this limited coverage does not meet the standard of being "widely published" and raises concerns about potential circular referencing. SturmFernmelder (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a Transcript button under the video in the ABC Australia source that you have to click on. Some1 (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add two more from jeuxvideo.com, a French language site considered to be reliable on on VG/RS:
- Skipple ☎ 00:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jeuxvideo has published over 200 articles mentioning Asmongold, and less than 5 mentioning a name. This does not constitute widely published, as required. SturmFernmelder (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You sound like you have a vested interest in this. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is not whether Zack Hoyt is the common name, it's whether is has been reported wildly. An extremely small percentage of sources would use the name Barack Hussein Obama II and yet it's the opening line on Barack Obama. We can make this argument about a variety of celebrities.
No one is denying that celebrities are known by, and frequently referenced by, different stage names or mononyms. We aren't going to do a percentage count of articles that refer to Marion Morrison. Asmongold is no different here. - Skipple ☎ 01:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

—— Isaidnoway (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is enough for me to strike my previous include comment. While I don't feel strongly that we shouldn't include the full name, it does give me pause that simply having multiple RS citing the name is not enough. Very much appreciate the digging here. - Skipple ☎ 17:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's weird how these articles didn't come up in a simple Google search, like others here, I started my search that way. Google is weird sometimes. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaidnoway Tell me about it. I did a google-news search for an article I wanted to make [3], but this [4] apparently doesn't count as "news". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 04:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include, reliably sourced and public information.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak include because this is a public figure whose name is already at least fairly "widely published by reliable sources", but it's not 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.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Marcus Markup (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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, Marcus Markup (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One person has called him a "random schmoe who monetizes online chit-chat about video games" - what "lot of animosity"? Pinkbeast (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Marcus Markup (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 so people will forget easier when it gets buried under other news and scandals and he becomes CEO of another company 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. AfricanKingFono (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)— AfricanKingFono (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
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.Marcus Markup (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged their signature, and agree they are probably a sock. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get a WP:CHK? or is CU overkill? Babysharkboss2!! (No Life 'Til Leather) 17:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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! 218.164.5.179 (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No

[edit]

Exclude I suspect that all of these source articles pulled their source for Asmongold's name either from each other or originated from a revision to the wiki article on 20 July 2022. The earliest source article of all those provided in this Talk page is from is from 1 August 2022 which is after the first revision to this article, and was published in the midst of a back and forth of whether or not it should be included here. I find it likely the author of the DotEsports article saw the name while it was published on the Asmongold Wiki page.

I believe it is also worth noting that none of these articles are interviews. They are all information that has been scraped from the internet. In my opinion, it is still highly likely the name being suggested here is not even correct, especially given that the earliest assertion I can find for it is an article revision on July 20th, 2022, at a time when there was zero material to cross reference the name itself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MageTea (talk • contribs) 13:31, August 22, 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the above editors history, there's a good chance it's a sock. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SturmFernmelder Babysharkboss2 was here!! Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor! 16:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude per sources found by Isaidnoway. My understanding of this article is not harmed by not knowing his last name and he has demonstrably taken steps to keep it private. This person is not a celebrity on the same tier as Lady Gaga (who has not tried very hard to hide her real name) so I don't find those examples compelling. WP:NOTCENSORED specifically carves out an exception for BLP, Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons), so that argument is not compelling to me either. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude This person is clearly trying to keep their full name private, the Washington Post backs them up on this, and we should therefore follow our BLP policies and exclude it. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Exclude: We should wait until a primary source, such as Asmongold himself or a family member or close friend, confirms his last name. The secondary coverage could be wrong, as MageTea points out that an earlier version of this page included the last name "Hoyt". If somebody finds a primary source that gives his last name, then I will likely strike this vote. Unnamed anon (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a primary source through The Wikipedia Library, and will say that the reliable sources provided in this RfC are not wrong about his last name being Hoyt. (And no, I'm not going to link that primary source here.) If Asmongold wants to keep his surname private (which the sources later presented here indicate), then it doesn't hurt to exclude it from the article per WP:BLPKINDNESS. I've added a footnote to the lead sentence regarding the last name. Some1 (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the footnote is a fantastic addition that should be kept if the result is to not give his last name; thanks Some1. I should explain the possibility that secondary sources could be wrong, as he could intentionally give a fake surname to mislead them; Technoblade gave a fake name that was used by secondary sources until his death. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude last name for now (changed from initial include). While nobody can be certain whether he has shared his name willingly or not, as many sources may require him to provide his name to them for internal recordkeeping when conducting interviews and the like, what can be certain is that he has expressed a desire to not have his last name publicized. By my count we have three very reliable sources that have either chosen not to publicize it or to whom he has expressed he does not want it publicized - these being CNN, Bloomberg, and Washington Post. This compares to Forbes and ABC (Australia) that have published his name, along with a few "lower quality" (but still reliable) sources that cover tech news. I feel it's important to note that, as far as I can see, the sources provided using his name are almost entirely after his name was initially added to this article. Given the concerns over potential circular referencing, and the significnatly greater number of sources which choose to not publish his name (whether per his request or otherwise), I do not think we should include the last name until and unless reliable sources for both the name itself and his willingness to make it public can be found. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude
  1. WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPNAME state that we do not include names when subjects want them kept private.
    → "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."
    → "When the name of a private individual [...] has been intentionally concealed [...] it is often preferable to omit it"
  2. Subject wants their surname kept private.[5]
  3. Its omission does not create any loss of context or understanding.
TarkusABtalk/contrib 19:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this may be a misreading of WP:BLPPRIVACY. Full quote:

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 to the details being made public

The "such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public" seems to be in reference to "or by sources linked to the subject," not on "that have been widely published by reliable sources." This means that since the name is widely published by reliable sources we do not need to take this into account. (edit: "Widely published" as asserted by other editors. I myself do not take a position on what is considered widely published.)
Simmilarly, WP:BLPNAME seems to be referring to "individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event" and should not apply. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair rebuttal. I may have misread. I still believe we should exclude, as the spirit of BLP policies is to respect privacy when we can reasonably do so. TarkusABtalk/contrib 21:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude - (Brought here by RFC/A) I do think this person (Asmongold) has made it clear in the past that he has withheld his surname from the public for privacy reasons, I think we can connect the dots and say he would prefer us not use his name, I do not think adding this information improves this article in anyway. MaximusEditor (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a tradition of respecting the rights of BLPs. Using the fact that readers might "get it somewhere else" as rationale for including it here makes me call into question your fitness as an editor, quite honestly. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not speaking as an editor in this case, but as a reader. I usually go to Wikipedia first to find out facts. Sometimes it has them, sometimes it doesn't. But the obtuseness of promoting this character while hiding information about him is why I say it makes Wikipedia look stupid. Better there should be no article at all. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. The Washington Post, Kotaku) are not using a full name in their coverage. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 18:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude — the subject of this BLP has made it abundantly clear that he does not provide his full name due to safety concerns and privacy reasons. 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. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude per my understanding of WP:BLPNAME which states 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 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? Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that he's not a public figure? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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 many people 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 to the details being made public. 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 wikipedia look stupid also do not apply. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 17:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly does "private" individual mean? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not here to pointlessly and meanderingly argue definitions with you. Policy is clear. 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 The standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified Brocade River Poems (She/They) 18:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so how does policy define the term "private" individual? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

For the avoidance of doubt I've read what 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. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from that specific interview with the WaPo, where has he explicitly said he doesn't want his name known? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, multiple reliable sources have reported he does not want his full name to be known. Our 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. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Marcus Markup (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Marcus Markup (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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?) Pinkbeast (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Marcus Markup (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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." J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legacy section is not neutral

[edit]

The legacy section is written in a biased and adulatory manner that reads like an advertisement for Asmongold rather than an encyclopedia article. Claims about Asmongold's "willingness and dedication" to World of Warcraft, as well as his "passion and extensive knowledge", seem to be the opinions of the writer and are not specifically sourced. The opinions that are present in the Dexerto and Game Rant sources are not clarified as opinions in this article, and are instead taken to be matter of fact. I think the legacy section should either be rewritten in a neutral format or removed entirely. Sickfit (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Praising vs. describing

[edit]

I'm noticing in the "Career" : "His unique style, in-depth knowledge of the game, and entertaining commentary earned him a dedicated fanbase and his dedication to the game and candid personality resonated with viewers"

Not backed up on how Asmongold's "style" is supposedly "unique" (the word "style" being itself quite ambiguous. What are we talking about here?), these words have quite a feeling of praising on these words' writer self-perception of the person than an actual factual description.

Comparing to the following words "in-depth knowledge of the game and entertaining commentary [...]" that can be more clearly backed-up and agreed upon.

Same with "[...] candid personality resonated with viewers", again that sounds like more of an opinion than facts.

Having taken notice the comment "Legacy section is not neutral" of 15:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC) already pointing out some writing in "adulatory manner that reads like an advertisement". It seems to me that words like "His unique style" (without further elaboration) are some remnant of advertising-like writing. 2A01:E0A:58:F640:A8DC:EEC7:D439:92D6 (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, article reads like it was written by a fan. 84.176.56.155 (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also no mention of his entanglements with the alt-right scene and connections to alt-right streaming and youtube accounts he maintains 84.176.56.155 (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should the bounty placed on him also be mentioned. Seem to be in jest, but placing literal wanted poster on person is, even as a joke, still a death threat. 94.57.142.18 (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it is a death threat is for reliable sources to decide, and we can report what those sources say. The same applies to his alt-right entanglements. Per WP:BLP, reliable sources are not optional. Grayfell (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This might be what he meant when he said in his apology following the Palestine comments that over the past couple years or so he's "been slowly devolving into the most mean-spirited... rude... nasty... callous... psychopathic version of myself" and that "I look back at some of the things I've said and done over the past two years... and ways I've acted that are indefensible". The timeline seems to line up with when a lot of his official stream clip content began to focus a lot more on making fun of "woke", "DEI", "radical feminist", etc stuff. 68.197.38.226 (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we describe his comments on Palestinians as "racist"?

[edit]

A significant number of sources about the matter are doing it [6][7][8][9]. The BBC article did not use this word itself and instead attributed it to a fellow streamer from Twitch. Would it be WP:DUE to use that word here, with or without attribution? Badbluebus (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With attribution. Currently, his remarks are described as "inflammatory" and I like that, because it is completely indisputable. The problem with calling them "racist" is, it depends on POV. To some people, his remarks are not actually "racist" but are "common sense". You and I might agree that they are 100% and completely wrong and that such a POV is despicable, but there are more than a few people who hold that POV, making the assertion subjective... I would prefer not to use Wikivoice for such statements, but would instead prefer to see attribution. Marcus Markup (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly shouldn't be said in Wikivoice. We could use wording like "His comments were characterised as racist" followed by the sources that use that word. — Czello (music) 07:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine comments in lead

[edit]

@NutmegCoffeeTea: Two different people (1, 2) have reverted your lead addition. Please find a consensus before reinserting --FMSky (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Real name (again)

[edit]

I know this comes up a lot, but I think we've reached the threshold that Asmongold's real name has been included in enough articles to warrant inclusion here, especially after his comments on Palestine. A short list of reliable sources that have published his name in just the last month:

It's not just the Forbes source anymore. Surely this is enough to add his real name to the article. Sock (tock talk) 20:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: The comment I was going to respond to was removed, but I see that I missed the most recent discussion taking place in September 2024. I saw the discussions below that section from 2023 and completely missed the date, so if others want to nip this completely, I understand. That said, I think the massive increase in his name's publication since October changes the situation a bit, but it's not a hill I'll die on with how much it's already been discussed. Sock (tock talk) 20:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asmongold&oldid=1255820764"