Talk:Asmongold

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

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

 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)

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

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

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

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)

@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)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2021

 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)

External links

• The True Story of Asmongold Mikelegault (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Accessible edits that contain personal information

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2022

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)

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

Article protected

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)

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)

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)

Sources for subject's name

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)

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.

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.

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)

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)

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)

[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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

To add to it, Dexerto has updated its news article to remove the name. SturmFernmelder (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

As a note, Dexerto is considered to be an unreliable source per WP:VGRS. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 04:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm thinking exclude it too. I smell citogenesis. casualdejekyll 12:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude until widely reported by reliable sources, per WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPPRIVACY TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with this. It is not widely reported and should be excluded. Alienbear (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  (from WP:BLPN#Asmongold) I also agree. Levivich (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  Coming from WP:BLPN, after a quick search I could only find a few mentions of his name. I think WP:BLPPRIVACY would support excluding the name here Tristario (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Name again

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Why would he be in danger? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Content disputes? I'm not sure why I said content supports. Well, other than getting old. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

It occurs to me that deleting the article would fix everything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

see discussion above. 22:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes

• 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)

Legacy section is not neutral

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)

Praising vs. describing

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)

Yep, article reads like it was written by a fan. 84.176.56.155 (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)