Talk:Asmongold/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Asmongold. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Article protected

Latest comment: 2 years ago130 comments46 people in discussion

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 (). 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)

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)

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)

If someone is "actively" concealing their identity, they would reveal neither their first or last name. Polyamorph (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

Yes

Yes, it's public. 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)
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.
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)
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)
Yes, here are some sources found on Google:

Forbes (staff) Zack Hoyt, a popular streamer known as Asmongold with 3.4 million Twitch followers
Forbes (staff) Zack Hoyt, who holds 3.4 million Twitch followers under the username Asmongold
ABC Australia Zack “Asmongold” Hoyt, Streamer
GamesRadar Zack Hoyt, better known as Asmongold
Dot eSports Dot eSports Real Name: Zack Hoyt
VentureBeat Zack “Asmongold” Hoyt, co-owner and founder, OTK.
GameRant Popular Twitch streamer Zack "Asmongold" Hoyt
essentiallysports Zack Hoyt aka Asmongold.
win.gg Zack “Asmongold” Hoyt
TheSportsRush Zack Hoyt, popularly known as Asmongold
eSports.gg Well-known streamers also participated in the Diablo 4 excitement. Some of them included Zack "Asmongold" Hoyt - Some1 (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Just to add two more from jeuxvideo.com, a French language site considered to be reliable on on VG/RS:

jeuxvideo.com 1 - De son vrai nom Zack Hoyt, ce joueur originaire du Texas
jeuxvideo.com 2 - Zack Hoyt, de son vrai nom

- Skipple ☎ 00:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

You sound like you have a vested interest in this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

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.

Natalie Portman and Natalie Hershlag
Lady Gaga and Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta
Katy Perry and Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson
Markiplier and Mark Edward Fischbach

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)

Include I am in favor of privacy rights for entertainers when appropriate, but I see no evidence that Asmon himself has made a statement or effort saying he finds the use of his actual name to be an issue with him. As an inclusionist, I say "include". Marcus Markup (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Include per Marcus' reasoning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Include per previous arguments and various examples of reliable sources referencing name. - Skipple ☎ 01:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes Reliable sources have used the name, though they tend to default to his handle which he goes by. The name is reliably sourced and several of those sources were directly in contact with the subject. Without anything specific to weigh against inclusion but the simple assertion that since he doesn't personally use the name, he's actively trying to prevent his name from being used, I think the strongest case at this time is for inclusion. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Include See WP:NOTCENSORED. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Include I also agree with Marcus, I've looked and can't find any reliable sources quoting him that the use of his real name is a privacy issue, nor has any sources been provided by the dissenters up above in that discussion. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Include it isn't a BLP vio, and WP:NOTCENSORED applies. Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor!} 15:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
~~Include~~ - sufficient time has passed for the user making this request to clarify why they believe the subject wishes their name to be private yet it is reported (quite widely, thanks to Some1 for their research) in sources. As it's reported in quite a few reliable sources and there is no evidence for the argument the subject wishes it to be private, it can be included. I will state, however, that I find it borderline that it is actually encyclopedic - from what I can read, there is nothing in the article currently (personal life, past careers) that depends on their real name for its inclusion. As such, if further evidence about the subject wishing it to be private is provided, this should be revisited. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 16:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Changing to exclude for now per the sources found by User:Isaidnoway. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment - I did some research through The Wikipedia Library and found these: The Washington Post has made it clear he doesn't disclose his real name in seven separate articles from August 2021, September 2021, October 2021, May 2022, July 2022, November 2022 and December 2022. And then one article from Bloomberg Businessweek {May 2022), and one from CNN Business (August 2020).

Asmongold, who declined to provide his full name due to safety concerns, in a Twitter message to The Post.
He declined to provide his last name, citing privacy reasons.
Star streamers like “World of Warcraft” and “Final Fantasy XIV” kingpin Asmongold (who has not publicized his real name)
Zack, better known as Asmongold, a streamer based in Austin with over a million followers. He declined to provide his last name, citing privacy reasons.
“World of Warcraft” and “Final Fantasy XIV” kingpin Asmongold (who has not divulged his full real name) disputed numbers purported to be his pay for the month of September, but told The Post that his pay since 2019 is “probably not wildly inaccurate.”
Asmongold, who has not disclosed his full name.
D’Anastasio, Cecilia (May 9, 2022). "Stepping Off the Streaming Treadmill". Bloomberg Businessweek. No. 4740. pp. 16–17. "You've seen countless streamers go through breakdowns, depressions, or worse," says top Twitch streamer Asmongold, who doesn't share his full name publicly.
"Whatever you follow on Twitter becomes a big presence for you," said Zack, better known as Asmongold, a top Twitch streamer based in Austin, with over 800,000 Twitter followers. He declined to provide his last name, citing privacy reasons. — Gale A726203780
Zack, better known as "Asmongold," is a 29-year-old World of Warcraft streamer based in Austin, Texas, who has 1.6 million followers. He declined to provide his last name. CNN Business – Gale A632466916

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

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)

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)

@Isaidnoway Tell me about it. I did a google-news search for an article I wanted to make , but this apparently doesn't count as "news". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

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)
Include, reliably sourced and public information.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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)

Include It is public information that is in a variety of reliable sources. For purposes of neutrality, an encyclopedia must be able to represent the sources. 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. 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 ~~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.

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)

I tagged their signature, and agree they are probably a sock. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Can we get a WP:CHK? or is CU overkill? Babysharkboss2!! ^{(No Life 'Til Leather)} 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! 218.164.5.179 (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

No

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)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SturmFernmelder Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor!} 16:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Exclude

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"
Subject wants their surname kept private.
Its omission does not create any loss of context or understanding.

TarkusAB^talk/contrib 19:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

In a way, omitting his real name doesn't matter, because it's all over the internet anyway. Well, it does matter in one way: It makes Wikipedia look stupid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
How? TarkusAB^talk/contrib 18:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

I'd to see someplace where he explicitly says he doesn't want his real name on the internet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Moving the goalposts is a bad look. How is "He declined to provide his last name, citing privacy reasons" not enough? Axem Titanium (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

That was in one lone interview. Yet the name is out there. If readers don't get it via Wikipedia, they'll get it somewhere else, and there goes the "privacy" argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
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)

If he's so bloody concerned about safety and privacy, why is his picture posted here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
He shows his face when streaming. What's your point? TarkusAB^talk/contrib 00:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

That his alleged concern about safety is nothing but hype, and you're buying into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 | me | talk to me! 09:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

Are you saying that he's not a public figure? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 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)
What exactly does "private" individual mean? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
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)
OK, so how does policy define the term "private" individual? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Real name (again)

Latest comment: 1 year ago36 comments16 people in discussion

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)

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)

@Sock In light of 8 major reliable sources on this in the last month I'm okay with adding it. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 08:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This should not have been re-added without an affirmative consensus to add, especially given the discussion barely a month and a half ago closed with no consensus. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 09:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

For full transparency, since there's been intervening edits to other parts of the article, I've manually removed his full name from the article pending further discussion here, returning to the use of pronouns where appropriate, or Asmongold where not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 09:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

From what I can see from reading the consensus page, the only situation where there would need to be an affirmative new consensus is if the previous discussion actually had a consensus. However the previous discussion had no consensus. I think this would fall under stonewalling. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

No consensus defaults to status quo. It is the responsibility of the editor (you) to obtain consensus on the talk page here before you include information that has been disputed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:STONEWALLING. Consensus works in both directions. It would be different if the previous discussion had a consensus, but users shouldn't claim a non-existent consensus to stonewall their preferred version. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Absent a lack of a consensus, no consensus defaults to the status quo. You need to read WP:BRD, as you are now edit warring to your preferred version rather than starting a discussion and waiting for it to conclude. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

NutmegCoffeeTea, you could always ping the editors who voted "No" in the RfC and ask them if their stances have changed since the October incident. Some1 (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

These most recent sources, and those which were discussed before, are sufficient for me to now think his name should be included. This person is a public figure who is noteworthy as both a streamer and as a business owner. This name is basic information which is supported by multiple reliable sources. These good-faith arguments against including his full name increasingly seem over-cautious. Grayfell (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
My prior opposition was based on his stated preference in direct interviews that he prefers not to disclose his full name. None of these new sources update that preference so my position is unchanged. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear to me that the supposed privacy concerns are even less relevant; the cat is not just out of the bag but sitting on the keyboard typing his name. However (unless it turns out people have changed their minds in large numbers) I suggest we kick this over to WP:BLPN and agree to do whatever the experts there recommend, whether we like it or not - if they say "leave it out", I will be perfectly happy to drop the question immediately. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
It seems to be a mix of bureaucratic behavior and poor research where the administrators overwhelm others with poor takes. Obviously his real name should be featured, as everyone knows it by now. I tried to but was asked to keep it at his stage name only. Tells you much about Wiki quality these days that people get away with this shoddy work called “editing.” Marugamirica (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
The RfC six months ago found no consensus to include his name. Now that there are more reliable sources reporting on his name after the whole Palestinian comments controversy and the Musk drama, maybe it's time for a second RfC? Some1 (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Their real name should be in the article, its just too much coverage to go against. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Should Asmongold's full name be included in the article? (2)

There are no dissents in this request for comment to include the name. The previous request for comment was closed as no consensus as the opposing side has demonstrated that the YouTuber did not wish his real name to be published. All of the sources that decline the publication of his name are dated to 2021 and 2022. However, editors who supported inclusion provided with newer sources from last year and this year that such name is disclosed, which caused some votes to be switched.

WP:BLPNAME, the controlling policy here, says 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, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. Sustained appearance of his name in various news media in different countries, combined with the fact that the streamer did not seem to object to any of the dissemination of his name after 2022 even though he could, means that his name is now publicly widely available. Therefore, excluding the name is very unlikely to preserve the privacy of Asmongold.

Given all of the above, there is consensus to include his name in the article. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

The previous RfC was closed as no consensus to include or exclude his name. Eight months later, at least a dozen new sources have used his full name.

Should Asmongold's full name be included in the article? --03:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Survey

Yes, per the sources in the table below. At the prior RfC, there were relatively few sources (only ~7) mentioning his full name. But after the Aug/Sept 2024 RfC, at least 15 new sources, including The Atlantic, CNN, BBC, NBC News, all mention his name. Some1 (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
@Some1 Not going to edit the table since I don't want to just edit another editor's comment, but at least two of the sources listed under "No" below, CNN and The Washington Post, have since started to used Hoyt's full name as well. Cortador (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Sources list
Yes	No
2022 Dot eSports Dot eSports Real Name: Zack Hoyt 2023 Forbes (staff) Zack Hoyt, a popular streamer known as Asmongold with 3.4 million Twitch followers Forbes (staff) Zack Hoyt, who holds 3.4 million Twitch followers under the username Asmongold ABC Australia Zack “Asmongold” Hoyt, Streamer GamesRadar Zack Hoyt, better known as Asmongold VentureBeat Zack “Asmongold” Hoyt, co-owner and founder, OTK. 2024 The Verge Twitch streamer Zach Hoyt, better known as Asmongold Sports Illustrated 34-year-old Zack "Asmongold" Hoyt IGN Zack Hoyt, the popular streamer best known as Asmongold Polygon Zack Hoyt, who goes by Asmongold and ZackRawrr online Complex creator Zack “Asmongold” Hoyt BBC Popular streamer Zach [sic] Hoyt, better known as Asmongold PC Gamer Twitch streamer Zack Hoyt, better known as Asmongold Hindustan Times Zack Hoyt popularly known as Asmongold CNN user Asmongold, whose real name is Zack Hoyt jeuxvideo Asmongold. Zack Hoyt Rock Paper Shotgun streamer Asmongold, otherwise known as Zack Hoyt 2025 The Atlantic Asmongold, whose real name is Zack Hoyt Latin Times Twitch streamer Zack Hoyt, known on the platform as Asmongold NBC News Zack Hoyt, who is known as Asmongold 9NEWS Australia content creator Zack Hoyt, better known as Asmongold IGN Twitch streamer and content creator Zack Hoyt (a.k.a. Asmongold) NME Twitch streamer Zack Hoyt, also known as Asmongold	2020 Zack, better known as "Asmongold," is a 29-year-old World of Warcraft streamer based in Austin, Texas, who has 1.6 million followers. He declined to provide his last name. CNN Business – Gale A632466916 2021 Washington Post Asmongold, who declined to provide his full name due to safety concerns, in a Twitter message to The Post. Washington Post Star streamers like “World of Warcraft” and “Final Fantasy XIV” kingpin Asmongold (who has not publicized his real name) Washington Post “World of Warcraft” and “Final Fantasy XIV” kingpin Asmongold (who has not divulged his full real name)” 2022 Washington Post He declined to provide his last name, citing privacy reasons. Washington Post Zack, better known as Asmongold, a streamer based in Austin with over a million followers. He declined to provide his last name, citing privacy reasons. Washington Post Asmongold, who has not disclosed his full name. D’Anastasio, Cecilia (May 9, 2022). "Stepping Off the Streaming Treadmill". Bloomberg Businessweek. No. 4740. pp. 16–17. Twitch streamer Asmongold, who doesn’t share his full name publicly. Zack, better known as Asmongold, a top Twitch streamer based in Austin, with over 800,000 Twitter followers. He declined to provide his last name, citing privacy reasons. — Gale A726203780 (credit to Isaidnoway for finding these "No" sources )

Yes - As I said about a year ago, 'If more reliable sources mention this it will probably end up here sooner or later.' The cat is fully out of the bag at this point. Grayfell (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes I !voted "No" the previous RfC, but the weight of reliable sourcing has changed since then. Marcus Markup (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Include - I !voted exclude in the last RfC, and have no idea if his full name is still a privacy issue, but the amount of sources now is overwhelming, and it appears he is using his real first name on his socials, so it's hard to argue he values his privacy if he is openly displaying his name on his social media accounts. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Include reliable sources use his full name and no longer seem to give him the privacy they afforded in 2022. I disagree with the idea of this being "too soon" as the article's subject has become much more politically focused in the last six months^[1]^[2] so coverage of him has a much less charitable tone and treats him as a WP:PUBLICFIGURE rather than just one streamer amongst many.^[3] Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 21:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Include- (Brought here from WP:RFC/A) I would agree with the "Cat is out of the bag" sentiment at this point in time now. I don't think "no" argument has much legs to stand on if any at all at this point. MaximusEditor (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Include. Hoyt's name is now widely published by a large number of reliable sources, which is everything we need to include it in this article, as Wikipedia is a reflection of such sources. This has also been picked up by non-English sources e.g. from Poland, Sweden, the Netherlands, or Germany. Cortador (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Include I voted a weak exclude last time based on his real name only showing up in a handful of secondary sources and lack of primary sources to confirm that this is not an alias or a mistake. But the sheer increase of his real name in sources makes it clear Zach Hoyt is at least a widely reported name that should be noted. Unnamed anon (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Requiring the community to re-visit, so soon, such a relatively trivial issue is a waste of editorial time. Marcus Markup (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Please read the Talk:Asmongold#Real name (again) discussion above (which was created on November 6, 2024 by another editor, after the RfC closed on September 21, 2024), where most editors want his name included in the article. It has been eight months since that last RfC closed with "no consensus", and now we have more than double the amount of RSes that use his full name. Some1 (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I did, and all I am saying is, it's too soon to be spending editors time for such a trivial matter. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

If we had started an RfC on November 6, 2024 when the editor above created the "Real name (again)" discussion above, then I would agree--that's far too soon. But it has been eight months now. We'll disagree on how "soon" eight months is. Anyway, it really takes less than a minute or two to write a Yes or No comment, especially when I've gathered all of the sources for editors to review already. Some1 (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

You "minute or two" estimate assumes we should just accept your work without verification, or do our own footwork. I don't !vote that way, and would not respect any editor who does. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

You do realize you could've just !voted Exclude above right instead arguing with me here? Some1 (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Your implication that I will just mindlessly !vote "Exclude" next time a legitimate RfC for this comes around is offensive. When the time comes, I will look at the state of the issue and make my decision then. Now is not the time. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good! Some1 (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Dude. You blew away the "No" section to your "Rfc". I am not about to fix what I think is a pre-mature RfC, I'm just saying. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Since comments are not votes, it doesn't necessarily make sense to place them in separate 'yes' and 'no' sections, and splitting them up this way can make the conversation harder to follow. Eight months is not too soon to revisit an RFC with no consensus, especially since there has been significant coverage in reliable sources in that time. Grayfell (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2025

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

Please change where it says Asmongold is a right wing commentator. Anyone who actually says or thinks that clearly has no idea what they're talking about and has not done even the smallest bit of research on him. It is literally so easy to find out that he is not right wing and holds both left and right wing views... he's very VERY obviously an independant and has views from both sides. I swear man sometimes y'all are just extremists it's like if someone is even in the MIDDLE you call them left wing because they're not as extreme as you. I'm talking to whoever it was that put that in there, you're an extremist. Please, someone who's not an extremist, who's actually responsible and intelligent, fix this obvious falsehood. 199.66.65.207 (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Call them right wing* not left wing. Though people do that too, extremists will just label the person part of the other side if they're not suuuper far on the left or right and say ANYTHING that disagrees. You have to be 100% left wing otherwise you're right wing to some of these people. 199.66.65.207 (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Not done:. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Your personal interpretation of his views is not relevant to this talk page, and Wikipedia does not publish original research. Your both-sides centrism is not an excuse to insult other editors, or label everyone else an extremist, either. Grayfell (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2025 (2)

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments5 people in discussion

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

Please change where it says "Zack Hoyt, better known as Asmongold, is an American YouTuber, content creator, online streamer, and right-wing political commentator." to "Zack Hoyt, better known as Asmongold, is an American YouTuber, content creator, online streamer, and political commentator who holds independent views of both the left and the right."

There, there's your specific edit request. Again, I say whoever put that he is right wing is clearly an extremist. Someone with some sense needs to get in here and fix this because it's like if someone isn’t 100% on the left some extremist left winger will come and label them right wing. It's so stupid, it makes the left look more extreme, it cheapens the value of leftism, it's the boy who cried wolf, it's all sorts of bad to do that. Also, if you start labeling anyone who's independent and thinks for themselves and has views from both sides as right wing, you make it look like right wing means modest and normal free thinker who doesn't hold extreme views and uses their own common sense to draw the right conclusion, and that left wing means someone who doesn't do that and just subscribes to what people tell them to think no matter how extreme. That is SO unhealthy and bad for the left (and for the politics unity of the entire country). 199.66.65.207 (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

It's like does anyone even clear these edits? Anyone who has done even the tiniest amount of research into asmongold or watched even ONE of his political videos would be so quick to pick up on the fact that he's independent... It's actually so ridiculous and almost surreal that someone actually put that he was right wing on here and NOBODY until me has said something about it. That, or people HAVE said something about it and y'all won’t fix it. 199.66.65.207 (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Not done:. Per above. Grayfell (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, Asmongold is not right-wing, but you should not expect Wikipedia to do something about it, not to mention the random articles supporting that claim. 2A01:CB0C:10A4:9A00:A06A:97B0:103C:2CB1 (talk) 06:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources say Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

"reliable". 2A02:8424:9261:3D01:8516:7223:44DE:AD5D (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Yup. they are. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Where does "Zach Hoyt" end, and "Asmongold" begin?

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments2 people in discussion

"Asmongold" is a Twitch streamer. Most top streamers put on a an exaggerated persona in order to attract viewers... they basically portray a character, and strive to be as interesting as possible... they're literally entertainers. The name of that game is to be interesting, and as the top streamer there, he's learned the game. However, the article begins this way: "Zach Hoyt is a blah blah blah and a right wing political commentator". We potentially make a mistake by conflating the person "Zach Hoyt" with the Twitch character "Asmongold". Were a magazine writer to have been tasked with writing an article about Stephen Colbert just based on one of his shows ("The Colbert Report") who could fault them for having called him "a fiercely patriotic, hardline conservative"? Given that this is a biography of a living person, applying a politically charged label in Wikivoice requires exceptional sourcing, or at least attribution, to avoid NPOV and BIO issues. Marcus Markup (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

He ain't Dr Disrespect, if that's what you're getting at. We have articles for both Stephen Colbert (character) and Stephen Colbert the performer. This is because The Colbert Report was explicitly about a persona, not the performer. If Hoyt has created the Asmongold persona to satirize right-wing political commentators (as Colbert did), he took a very long time to establish that persona beforehand, and has done a terrible job communicating his intentions in that time, since I have not seen a single reliable source even hint at the possibility that this might just be an act. Grayfell (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Nobody becomes a top Twitch streamer by projecting their everyday persona on their stream. They become the top Twitch streamer by affecting a persona and feeding their viewers red meat. Using that Twitch persona to categorize the living person behind it with those attributes, in Wikivoice, with such half-assed sourcing, is so over the line I am astounded I have to continue raising that point. It is disheartening to see such a clear violation of the encyclopedias stringent policy regarding BLPs be so blithely ignored by so many editors. Marcus Markup (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Categorizing the Twitch streamer "Asmongold" as being "right-wing" is one thing. But labeling the person "Zach Hoyt", in Wikivoice with that attribute, using such lame sourcing, is another. Am I REALLY the only editor here who sees the problem with that? REALLY? I advocated respecting Hoyt's request for privacy and for keeping his actual name private during prior RFC's... finally, I relented and accepted the inevitability of his name being in the article here, but now that it is, this is a BLP and more than just a description of his Twitch character. Marcus Markup (talk) 11:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

If we're just going by vague claims, I think all or almost all top twitch streamers project an amplified version of their real personality. That's an unavoidable consequence of spending hundreds of hours over years in front of an audience of thousands without a script. Nobody is pretending Hoyt or any other streamer acts exactly the same when the camera is off, because that was never an expectation (for anybody).

But again, this isn't about our competing vague claims, it's about sources. Your claim that the sourcing is 'half-assed' doesn't hold up. As far as reliable sources are concerned, Asmongold is Zach Hoyt. I have not seen any sources describing 'Asmongold' as character. If Hoyt has become a fictionalized version of himself over time, cite a source for that claim. From what I have seen, reliable sources to not place Hoyt in this category at all. If I'm wrong, point me to a source. Grayfell (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The writings of an arts and leisure critic are certainly NOT a "reliable source" in this case... I hate to have to repeat myself but, the green check next to The Atlantic is for their reporting, not their criticism. And I hate to have to repeat myself again, but this is a BLP, and the burden of "citing a source to support that claim" falls upon those who continue to wish to label Hoyt using a pejorative. Marcus Markup (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I couldn't help myself. This is a conversation I had with ChatGPT about The Atlantic, and it's division between reporting and criticism in general, and the author of the source in particular. https://chatgpt.com/share/688b2748-52d4-8011-bab4-8d1cc2f9600f

Marcus Markup (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Your ChatGPT conversations are not relevant to this discussion.

Your unsupported assertion that this is NOT a "reliable source" is not supported by Wikipedia policy or precedent, and putting "reliable source" in scare quotes makes it seem like you do not understand what that term means here. This source is not criticism. It isn't a review of his channel or his content, nor is it an editorial. This is a journalist writing about how a very popular streamer has influenced political discourse. There wouldn't be any other way to summarize this then to mention his political positions.

Your claim that an accurate description of a political streamer's position is pejorative is also unsupported. Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations, and disliking a source's conclusions is not an excuse to WP:CRYBLP. Grayfell (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

"Disliking" a source's conclusion, when warranted, and saying why, is part of the job of being an editor, although I prefer the term "objecting". We are not supposed to just look at the name of the source and go "Yep! Green check! Put it in the lead without attribution!" You seem to wave "the green check" around as if it were a talisman... the green checks were applied through the process of consensus seeking by editors like us, and that consensus often changes due to cases like this... a streamer who supports universal health care, thinks 40% of the economy should be socialist, supports gay marriage, unions, and abortion is supposed to be "right wing", which in this case has lead to our parroting that half-baked, partisan nonsense in Wikivoice. The writer is of COURSE an opinion writer, and of COURSE his writing is POV, not objective, and requires attribution. The issue of separation between the Atlantic's opinion pieces, and its reporting, is mentioned in "the green check" entry for it. And your assertion that the term "right-wing" in the first sentence of a living person's bio cannot be considered a pejorative is ridiculous. It is a phrase with very negative connotations to many people and must be used in accordance to BLP policies, which are being completely ignored in this case by so many page watchers. I suspect wanting to be able to sit at, or maybe remain, sitting at the cool editors table, and not be the one responsible for removing "right wing" from the bad man's article may have something to do with it, TBH. Marcus Markup (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Political identity is, for many people, as sensitive as gender or sex identity, and should be treated as sensitively in the encyclopedia. For edge cases in particular (entertainers, those with ideas outside of the mainstream, etc) political identity can be very subjective and a matter of POV and we can't just go labeling people certain ways so breezily without rock-solid sourcing... BLP policies forbid it. And I can assure you, true libertarians find having their words and philosophies categorized as "right wing" VERY offensive... this is actually a common phenomena. Libertarians have been criticized as just being conservatives who like to get high, etc etc. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Recent book mention

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Grayson, Nathan (2025). Stream big: the triumphs and turmoils of Twitch and the stars behind the screen (First ed.). New York: Atria Books. ISBN 9781982156763.

Atria Books is a division of Simon & Schuster

These paragraphs from p. 259 provide some context on his political content:

With other political streamers failing to replicate Piker's unique alchemy, it is, oddly enough, more traditional streamers who've begun to do their best impressions of him when earth-shattering news hits. It's something of a double-edged sword: On one hand, Piker has successfully turned news into a viable genre of Twitch broadcast. On the other, when popular streamers abruptly toss on their press caps, they often don't know what they're talking about. For example, Twitch superstars like Lengyel and Asmongold—both of whom mostly play video games during typical streams—amplified misinformation and sexist narratives during the long-burning tire fire that was the Johnny Depp~Amber Heard trial in 2022.

“[Asmongold] had some takes that were fueling the incel narrative,” says Frogan. “You have seventy-five thousand average concurrent viewers and you're an influential character, and you don’t even know that what you're saying is wrong, [These streamers] are like, ‘Oh well, this is content? They don't look at it from the perspective of educating people.”

Frogan is another streamer, and her opinion is probably not usable here, but the author's inclusion of this shows that the preceding paragraph is about Asmongold, specifically. The surrounding context is about Hasan Piker, and then shifts to talk about institutional media, so it's not very relevant to this article. There are a couple of other mentions in the book, but they don't seem very useful. Grayfell (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

These paragraphs from p. 259 provide some context on his political content: The source calls Asmongold "sexist", and "fueling an incel narrative", which seems fair. What does that have to do with his political content? Marcus Markup (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

This source may be useful to the article. I created a new talk page section because this has no direct connection to the other discussions on this page. Grayfell (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

It may or may not be useful to the article. That was not my question... consider this separate from the political labeling issue. My question was, since you made the assertion, "What does that have to do with his political content?" Because being an asshole, or a racist, or a sexist, says nothing about a person's politics except perhaps to police detectives, pop culture critics, and bigots. If you don't think there's such a thing as a racist, sexist, liberal or libertarian asshole in America, come down South, where I live... I can show you more than a few specimens! Some of them can even go "Yee haww! That's what ye get, boy!" to the delight of their subscribers. Marcus Markup (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

These two paragraphs from the source itself are specifically about 'political streamers'. If I understand you correctly, I will just point out that it is trivially easy to find libertarians and self-described 'classical liberals' who are on the right or far-right... but again, this section is not intended to be an extension of the other discussions on this talk page, I'm jut pointing to a source which may be useful. It says what it says. Grayfell (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

POV neutrality template

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I have added a POV template to this article to address concerns about a violation of BLP policy, in this case, the use of a politically charged label in the first sentence of the biography of a living person, in Wikivoice and with weak sourcing, that Zach Hoyt is a "right-wing commentator." Sources are an article in "The Atlantic" written by a pop culture reviewer, and two gamer sites.

My issues:

- Distinction between character and person. Hoyt performs as "Asmongold" on Twitch, where exaggerated personas are the rule. Applying political labels drawn from on-stream behavior directly to the individual are inappropriate without clear attribution and impeccable sourcing. The current lead violates the neutrality and sourcing standards expected for biographies of living people by labeling not the Twitch character "Asmongold", but the person "Zach Hoyt" himself as "right-wing".

- Source quality concerns: The primary source is an article by a culture and music columnist for The Atlantic who does not have the credentials or writing experienece to warrant us using his political categerizations in Wikivoice without equivocation or attribution. The Atlantic’s entry in the Perennial Sources table also cautions that it does not always clearly distinguish between opinion and reporting. Such sources require attribution and are insufficient justification for applying political labels in Wikivoice in a BLP.

In sum, the current lead violates the neutrality and sourcing standards expected for biographies by labeling not the Twitch character "Asmongold" but the person "Zach Hoyt" as "right-wing". We need to be diligent in the application of BLP policy, particularly for controversial figures (policy is written to protect edge cases...non-controversial BLPs typically do not require invocation of policy), and I want to encourage my fellow editors to diligently enforce those policies, even when we don't like the subject of the article, don't like their message or what they are doing, and know for a fact that they are a blatant and public asshole. Marcus Markup (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the re-hashing. I guess I phrased this as an RFC. I probably should go ahead and do that, and ping the pertinent groups. I will, but in the meantime, I'm leaving this. Marcus Markup (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

This is too wordy and not neutral enough to be a good RFC. Please take a look WP:RFCBEFORE and WP:RFCBRIEF. Grayfell (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother. Having the POV hatnote will suffice. Marcus Markup (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Before starting any RfCs, I recommend including information in the Asmongold#Political and social commentary section that explains how his views are described as (or are) "right-wing", and then the RfC can focus on the first sentence later. Some1 (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

The self-identification (or lack thereof) of the subject of a biography should also be considered. The truly right wing influencers I know of (Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Crowder, etc) are not shy of proclaiming their affiliation with the right-wing movement and in fact, take the label as a point of pride. Card-carrying Libertarians, on the other hand, are sometimes mocked for the alleged hypocrisy of belonging to a political party on the one hand, while spouting off about freedom of thought and action on the other, which goes a ways towards explaining why there are so few card-carrying Libertarians. That Hoyt does not seem to have explicitly affiliated himself with a political party or movement goes towards our not being so quick to label him "right-wing". More likely, he doesn't care about political affiliations at all, which is again a thing most lower-case "l" libertarians would completely understand and appreciate. Marcus Markup (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Sources recognize his proclaimed apathy towards politics and supposed centrism. They also categorize him as right-wing anyway, for obvious reasons. I don't think anyone, anywhere, is saying he's adopted every single right-wing belief. Likewise, his self-identification is of limited use to Wikipedia. Most people view their own beliefs as reasonable, or common sense or whatever, and therefor 'moderate', but this is a dead-end. When people define their own positions as reasonable, every other opinion looks unreasonable. That doesn't make someone a centrist, it just makes them annoying to be around.

If you know of any reliable sources about his political beliefs at all, let's see them. As for card-carrying libertarians, if reliable sources talk about how people mock Hoyt for his beliefs, let's see those sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

So you dont like him and are still deciding to keep the label ? Take the label off , hes not right wing . It has been proven to you over and over again. Listen to yourself and change it . 2601:447:D17E:7970:ED2A:B622:1F5E:CC69 (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Found a good source

Latest comment: 1 year ago15 comments4 people in discussion

https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2025/04/how-video-games-took-over-politics-asmongold/682592/

This article should be cited more. Has lots of information on his political views. RationalWikian (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

That many of his views meet the definition of "right-wing" is not an issue, and the lead can say that without issue. Labeling his person as "right-wing"... I see an issue with that. Labeling a person is different from labeling words, and implies membership in a class, and I think needs attribution, if not specifically ("... according to The Atlantic") at least generally (e.g. "... widely considered to be") Marcus Markup (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

The lead describes him as a political commentator. It isn't saying he's a right-wing person in the abstract, it is specifically referring to his political content. He isn't a journalist, and he isn't pretending to be impartial (or if he is he is failing utterly at it). As a summary of his political commentary this is short and to-the-point, which is what the lead should be. "Widely considered to be" introduces WP:WEASEL issues. Grayfell (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

He supports LGBTQ rights, adult transitioning, gay marriage, and the right to abortion. He supports universal healthcare. Action on climate change. He's pro union. He's said that he is willing to borrow from socialism useful ideas, and thinks the best economic system is 60/40 capitalist/socialist. He took the "Political Compass" test and scored "left-libertarian". He believes Trump tried to rig the 2020 election, and has been critical about his supporters saying they “will believe and repeat literally anything he says and never question anything—whatever the cost". Regarding his being into DOGE and cutting government, cutting government to the bone is not uniquely a right-wing thing, but is also a libertarian thing. Also a thing with some libertarians is opposition to an open border until migration is no longer incentivized by the provision of government benefits upon arriving. Regarding his bigotry against Muslims, again, bigotry is not a defining aspect of right-wing thought, I am thinking Sam Harris whose views on Islam are so harsh as to cause him to be routinely considered "Islamophobic". Labeling Hoyt's words as "right-wing", with no qualification, based on the opinions of a handful of writers who obviously hold him in contempt, in the first sentence of his bio, seems to be an unwarranted categorization, perhaps a result of Hoyt violating a pet cause of the author which made the headlines... certainly not based on a survey comprehensive enough to include his less inflammatory thoughts and statements. Marcus Markup (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

All of this is original research. The political compass test is a joke and a meme, and performatively taking such a test proves nothing. It is not a credible source for anyone's beliefs. Grayfell (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The test Hoyt took may well be a joke. I was thinking he took a test based on the Nolan chart... a test I recall taking decades ago, which certainly was not a joke or a meme, and was hawked by the Libertarian party. Marcus Markup (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

All of this is original research I did not cite those facts because I am proposing including them in the article. I recited them as part of the process of vetting the quality of the work of the author of the source, which is completely appropriate. We as editors are encouraged to do due diligence in ensuring that our sources and their work adhere to encyclopedic standards, and that includes reviewing and discussing material for which inclusion in the encyclopedia is not desired or warranted. Marcus Markup (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Looking into the source a bit more, it does not seem that "good", at least as far as it being useful as rationale for our labeling Hoyt "right wing" in Wikivoice. The article was posted in the "Culture" section of the web site by an author who "covers pop culture and music" for the Atlantic^[1]... using his opinon as rationale for our use of Wikivoice is of course unwarranted... he does not have the qualification. The Perennial Sources entry for the magazine warns that "Editors should beware that The Atlantic does not always clearly delineate between reporting and opinion content" WP:THEATLANTIC. Using a pop culture columnist's POV as a source for our labeling Hoyt as "right wing", in Wikivoice, in the first sentence of this person's article is by no means "good". Marcus Markup (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

People are no longer satisfied by the "left/right" political dynamic constantly invoked during political dialogue. The political establishment and its admirers of course continue to support such a division, but many people consider the division unsophisticated and dated. No longer are the labels of "left" or "right" sufficient to describe many people's politics. Libertarians, in particular, are by common definition "socially liberal and fiscally conservative". They hold views which are typically considered left-wing, when it comes to individual freedoms, but hold views which are traditionally considered "right-wings" in so many ways that they are routinely categorized as not "libertarian" but "right-wing". I believe the cited sources for our usage of him being right wing are politically naive, perhaps even intentionally so, and because their POV does not allow for political views to stray from the "left-right" dynamic, they project their POV onto the subjects of their writing. When it comes to political labels, we simply cannot use leisure and culture critics POVs to be used as sources for the nature of an entertainer's politics, except with attribution. Editorial insistence that the POV not be attributed implies a universality of agreement into the nature of the speech on his show, and the nature of his person, that is simply not present except among a handful of politically unsophisticated writers. I feel the need to remind my colleagues that this is a BLP, and impeccable sourcing is required, especially when labeling a person using a POV term many consider derogatory and a pejorative, in the first sentence of their article. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Your opinions about what people are or are not satisfied with is irrelevant. This talk page is not a forum for general discussion, and Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. Rein it in, please. Grayfell (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

My comment, on the whole, raised valid points pertaining to the improvement of the article. I will not apologize, or cease, occasionally including context or precursor to my points. Marcus Markup (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

We disagree on the legitimacy of the Nolan chart, but without a reliable source, it has no relevance to improving this article, and that is the sole purpose of this talk page. If you think that a journalist for a green-check outlet, writing an article about a livestreamer, should be discounted because they cover 'culture', what should we say about David Nolan's expertise as a fringe political activist? The answer is 'nothing', because this still has nothing to do with this article, hence WP:NOR. Grayfell (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The Atlantic is green check for its reporting, and a distinction is made between it and opinion pieces. The source article appears to me to be an opinion piece. As I said above, the entry for it in the Perennial Sources table says that some editors have pointed out that The Atlantic blurs the line between its reporting and its opinion pieces, implying that this Leisure and Culture reporter's writing was probably not editorially vetted for the accuracy of its political categorizations. The words of social critics are, by definition and intention, POV, and using them without attribution, and with the implication that their POV is somehow objective or universal, would be encyclopedic malpractice. Marcus Markup (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I have not seen any compelling argument for why this needs to be treated as an opinion piece. This is pretty standard New Journalism stuff. The coverage is deep and the author provides plenty of context for their conclusions. The author does also provide their own perspective, ("I recognize his hypnotized, single-minded mentality from my own gaming experiences", for example) but this isn't what the source is being cited for. Grayfell (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Grayfell. Protectron123 (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

References

↑ https://www.theatlantic.com/author/spencer-kornhaber/

Change to extended confirmed protection

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Due to his political views and controversial statements (espcially regarding Palestine) , this also aligns with other commentators who pages are extended confirmed protection and other pages of the same topic (especially Israel snd Palestine partisan issues) 185.69.145.6 (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I think there is a special noticeboard you have to appeal to, IP. Protectron123 (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2025

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

CHANGE NAME FROM ZACK TO FULL NAME ZACHARIAH 83.233.145.75 (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Day Creature (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2025

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

asmongold is agnostic and should have a category under it 158.121.180.32 (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2025 (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. Slomo666 (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2025

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

In early 2024, Hoyt, alongside other prominent YouTubers, aided in spreading "anti-woke" conspiracism around Sweet Baby Inc.'s work in promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion

The current wording says that Hoyt “aided in spreading anti-woke conspiracism” about Sweet Baby Inc. I think the word “conspiracism” is not supported by multiple reliable sources and risks giving undue weight to one interpretation.

Reliable outlets such as Wired, PC Gamer, and Kotaku describe the Sweet Baby Inc. controversy as a backlash and organized online campaign, and also explain that the company’s role is primarily consultative.

These sources verify: – Sweet Baby Inc. is credited on several high-profile games. – There was significant online backlash and harassment campaigns. – Reporting frames the company’s work as advisory, not controlling.

None of these pieces explicitly frame the entire situation as a “conspiracy.” Using that term in Wikipedia’s voice risks violating WP:NPOV and WP:BLP by attributing a motive/ideology not directly supported by multiple sources.

Suggested fix: replace “aided in spreading anti-woke conspiracism” with something more neutral and sourced, e.g.: “In early 2024, Hoyt commented on an online controversy regarding Sweet Baby Inc., which became the focus of organized campaigns, accusations about influencing game content, and harassment, with reporting describing its role as primarily consultative.”

This keeps the facts, uses reliable sources, and avoids unverified or loaded terms. 2A0C:5A83:4607:D000:B555:752F:A33F:732 (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Note: Hello, you’ve posted two nearly identical edit requests. I am going to set this one to answered. Also please take care to not bloat your edit requests. This is very difficult to read. Slomo666 (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2025 (2)

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

The current wording says that Hoyt “aided in spreading anti-woke conspiracism” about Sweet Baby Inc. I think the word “conspiracism” is not supported by multiple reliable sources and risks giving undue weight to one interpretation.

Reliable outlets such as Wired, PC Gamer, and Kotaku describe the Sweet Baby Inc. controversy as a backlash and organized online campaign, and also explain that the company’s role is primarily consultative.

These sources verify: – Sweet Baby Inc. is credited on several high-profile games. – There was significant online backlash and harassment campaigns. – Reporting frames the company’s work as advisory, not controlling.

None of these pieces explicitly frame the entire situation as a “conspiracy.” Using that term in Wikipedia’s voice risks violating WP:NPOV and WP:BLP by attributing a motive/ideology not directly supported by multiple sources.

Suggested fix: replace “aided in spreading anti-woke conspiracism” with something more neutral and sourced, e.g.: “In early 2024, Hoyt commented on an online controversy regarding Sweet Baby Inc., which became the focus of organized campaigns, accusations about influencing game content, and harassment, with reporting describing its role as primarily consultative.”

This keeps the facts, uses reliable sources, and avoids unverified or loaded terms. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3]

“In early 2024, Hoyt commented on an online controversy regarding Sweet Baby Inc., which became the focus of organized campaigns, accusations about influencing game content, and harassment, with reporting describing its role as primarily consultative.”*^[1]^[2]^[3] 2A0C:5A83:4607:D000:B555:752F:A33F:732 (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Not done: AI-generated edit requests are not permitted and will not be implemented. See WP:LLMTALK. Day Creature (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

References

1 2 Morris, I. (March 6, 2024). "The Small Company at the Center of 'Gamergate 2.0'". Wired. Retrieved September 24, 2025.
1 2 Fenlon, W. (February 21, 2024). "A company called Sweet Baby Inc has become the target of 'anti-woke' gamers because it offers consultancy work, an industry standard service that's been normal for years". PC Gamer. Retrieved September 24, 2025.
1 2 Caldwell, B. (February 22, 2024). "Sweet Baby Inc Doesn’t Do What Some Gamers Think It Does". Kotaku. Retrieved September 24, 2025.

Horrible writing

Latest comment: 10 months ago7 comments6 people in discussion

The below paragraph is among the worst things I’ve ever read on Wikipedia, which is particularly surprising given the high profile of the subject.

Sure, valid source, but the entire passage is just a poorly strung together set of snippets from the source article. It should be deleted entirely and the article used as a citation elsewhere in the page.

Hoyt has been described as being "technodeviant"; of being part of a group of typically involuntary celibate, white, heterosexual males whose privilege is alleged to displace marginalized communities from the gaming space. His non-gaming content has been described as being "carefully constructed to largely read apolitical unless taking up a particular right-wing grievance". The authors further said the "suggestion is that he is performing his brand for an audience, and that his statements do not adequately reflect his personal beliefs". Reference is made to a series of misogynistic comments he made which alluded to a former girlfriend and felt "obligated to say ... because his audience would want to hear them". In 2019 while in response to the murder of George Floyd in 2020, Hoyt provided "powerful commentary on disguised racism in the design of emotes" on Twitch. 147.147.185.167 (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

The paragraph is based on a non-notable paper written by two non-notable academics. Nobody is talking about their paper in any way and there are therefore no secondary sources. I did object to its inclusion, but my revert was reverted. The initial insertion was also peculiar in that it did not actually include the purport of the authors of the paper, but seemed tailored to include one sentence fragment: their mention of the recently-contentious term "right-wing". In the interests of NPOV, I then added context and purport. Without at least one secondary source referring to their work, I still support complete removal of their conclusions from the article. Marcus Markup (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

In the heirarchy of RS:

Peer-reviewed academic paper > primary SPS, and non-notable niche online outlets.

As the latter are used prolificly through the article, there's nothing wrong with including sources that discuss Asmon which have some academic rigour behind them. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

What academic rigor are you seeing, exactly? 75.132.176.144 (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Concur with User:Marcus Markup here. there are academic papers and then there are academic papers. the pub has 0 cites and was published in a journal of SJR of 0.160. there are **undergrad** journals which are more notable. not to mention the source used is an online pdf from an AI research website.

If User:Cdjp1 thinks there are "non-notable niche online outlets" used in this article, you should bring them up and they should be removed too. this is a poor justification for including a bad academic source (and yes, speaking as an academic, there are *many* academic sources which are not reliable nor notable). not to mention this is a BLP page, which should have higher standards for sources that attempt to characterize the subject's personality/character, which is what the pub does. Ceconhistorian (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cdjp1 Mentioning you here in case you didn't see this when reverting. I do agree that this article has some problems with using sources not by WP:RSP, but that doesn't excuse the inclusion of non-notable sources either. UppercutPawnch (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

To claim this is a "consensus" you are adhering to is a stretch, this shows nothing close to a consensus. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

[1] ttps://www.theatlantic.com/author/spencer-kornhaber/

[Wired2024-2] 1 2 Morris, I. (March 6, 2024). "The Small Company at the Center of 'Gamergate 2.0'". Wired. Retrieved September 24, 2025.

[PCGamer2024-3] 1 2 Fenlon, W. (February 21, 2024). "A company called Sweet Baby Inc has become the target of 'anti-woke' gamers because it offers consultancy work, an industry standard service that's been normal for years". PC Gamer. Retrieved September 24, 2025.

[Kotaku2024-4] 1 2 Caldwell, B. (February 22, 2024). "Sweet Baby Inc Doesn’t Do What Some Gamers Think It Does". Kotaku. Retrieved September 24, 2025.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Article protected

Sources for subject's name

Name again

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

Yes

No

Discussion

Real name (again)

RfC: Should Asmongold's full name be included in the article? (2)

Survey

Discussion

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2025

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2025 (2)

Where does "Zach Hoyt" end, and "Asmongold" begin?

Recent book mention

POV neutrality template

Found a good source

Change to extended confirmed protection

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2025

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2025

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2025

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2025 (2)

Horrible writing