Talk:Narcissa Wright

Notability?

Why does this person have a wikipedia page? If being known solely among a tiny group of people interested in highly niche hobbies is grounds for notability, then just about every local band ever formed deserves their own wikipedia page, and I don't believe anyone's about to argue in favor of that. This page should be deleted posthaste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3885:AAF0:A8DD:3046:CC48:3CF5 (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@anonymous Describing speedrunning as "highly niche" is biased does not reflect the neutrality that Wikipedia upholds. The latest speedrunning convention raised 1.75 million for charity. Narcissa Wright is an important aspect of the community that can no longer reasonably be described as "niche."

I would also like to question why this article exists. This article seems self-interested, possibly from even a sycophant, in, yes, a niche community within gaming. This person is also inactive, and never did anything quite noteworthy, or even marginally in the public sphere. Do we include everyone that ever got mentioned a few times on a blog site? What even is this article? Discussing a couple brief segments which occurred a few times years ago, and half the article dedicated to a long dead twitch account? Narcissa does stream on youtube still... and averages ~100 views a video. Many of the ancient references are links to Narcissa's own webpages, Narcissa created, or just videos uploaded to youtube. Or how about Narcissa winning a 3ds? Excuse me? This page seems ridiculous. If you somehow want to argue SpeedRunsLive is notable, (it isn't, https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Speedrun), that site should have a page, and not this person.2601:982:4200:A6C:9459:D3F9:E9FF:76D (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• This article is indeed very weak and deserves a rewrite. Wright happens to be one of the more notable speedrunners, though, even within the community. I believe she does meet the general notability guidelines. I might completely rewrite this article myself sometime. Either way, if this article were to be nominated for deletion, I would certainly look up more reliable sources than are currently used in order to establish a stronger notability for this subject. ~Mable (chat) 15:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I would say that this article deserves to be deleted. Hell, it's not even up to date since Narcissa quit the internet all together (look at her channel). She might have been very popular half a decade ago, but she doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. She isn't involved in any event, she isn't speedrunning, she's e-begging and killing her mind with Soylent. I don't know how to start a delete vote, and I doubt anybody would even vote, but please, delete this article ASAP. - Maida — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaidaOfficial1 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Being up to date has nothing to do with notability. Your apparent animosity and petty insults are also irrelevant. As Maplestrip explained last year, this person appears to meet notability guidelines (such as WP:NBIO), as she has received coverage from multiple reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I changed the pronouns the user Maida used and changed her deadname to her actual name.Rzkrohan (talk) 08:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2023

RobinCKL (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC) don't write her deadname

 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. MadGuy7023 (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2023

You can't say the deadname of somebody. Please, remove it ! It's really bad to say a deadname 2001:1715:4E21:AE90:B87B:2B3F:96E0:8C8F (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2023 (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. Heart ^(talk) 17:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2023

Narcissa's deadname should be removed from this page. it is not okay to keep her deadname on here. 109.29.115.43 (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: see MOS:DEADNAME. Wright was clearly notable under her deadname prior to her coming out and per policy we mention that name Cannolis (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2024

In the "Career" section (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Narcissa_Wright#Career), the line at the end is highly speculative. This is the line in question, "After Wright threatened to commit suicide and to mass-murder Twitch staff, Twitch initially reduced her suspension before permanently banning her. She continued to stream on YouTube.[23]". I believe this line should be removed. This line is highly speculative, as it references a deleted tweet and should not be taken as a sincere threat to commit suicide, nor a sincere threat on the lives of others. It could even be seen as bordering on defamation of character. I would suggest that this line be removed from the Narcissa Wright wikipedia page to address it's speculative nature and keep the page on topic. Please change "After Wright threatened to commit suicide and to mass-murder Twitch staff, Twitch initially reduced her suspension before permanently banning her. She continued to stream on YouTube.[23]" to remove it from the page.

Ikemerue (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Considering that these tweets lead to Wright's apparently still-in-place ban from Twitch, I don't see how we can remove the sentence entirely. There could be alternative wording, but that would have to be supported by the currently cited source and mention what Twitch banned her for. Cannolis (talk) 08:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Wright did respond follow up on the Twitter posts in question and clear up their intentions surrounding the event. It seems more appropriate to refer to the Twitter posts that lead to her ban as "offhanded threats.

I'm proposing that "Wright returned to Twitch and in March 2022, was temporarily suspended after opening graphic content from a viewer on-stream. After Wright threatened to commit suicide and to mass-murder Twitch staff, Twitch initially reduced her suspension before permanently banning her. She continued to stream on YouTube." be changed to "Wright returned to Twitch and in March 2022, was temporarily suspended after opening graphic content from a viewer on-stream. After making offhanded threats towards Twitch staff and her own life on Twitter, Twitch initially reduced her suspension before permanently banning her."

I also propose that the following source either replace citation [23], or be added as an additional cited source, "https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/banned-twitch-streamer-threatens-to-shoot-people-at-platform-hq-1789181/" Ikemerue (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Disagree that adding "offhanded" is more appropriate, feels like injecting WP:OR into things. How about adding her response instead - adding something like "Wright later deleted the tweets and speaking to Dexerto, said that the threats had never been legitimate and that she did not own weapons." Cannolis (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

How about this, as it's taken directly from the cited article.

Replace "After Wright threatened to commit suicide and to mass-murder Twitch staff, Twitch initially reduced her suspension before permanently banning her." with "After Wright made several tweets threatening both self-harm and harm to Twitch staff, Twitch initially reduced her suspension before permanently banning her."

Also, add "Wright later deleted the tweets and speaking to Dexerto, said that the threats had never been legitimate and that she did not own weapons." to the end of the section and include this article as a citation, "https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/banned-twitch-streamer-threatens-to-shoot-people-at-platform-hq-1789181/" Ikemerue (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Have added the latter. Don't think "self-harm and harm to Twitch staff" adequately encompasses this event, self-harm has quite a wide range of meanings and "harm to Twitch staff" could mean anything from protests to lawsuits to what she actually tweeted. Perhaps we just quote her tweet? Cannolis (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Well ,"threatened to commit suicide and to mass-murder" are over exaggerating the event given Wright clarified that the threat was not legitimate and the tweet "[felt] like self-harming though, and the tweet was my way of self-harming." according to Wright in the Dexerto article. If you're going to quote Wright's deleted tweet, I believe her other tweets should be quoted as they are in the Dexerto article.

How about this, replace "After Wright threatened to commit suicide and to mass-murder Twitch staff, Twitch initially reduced her suspension before permanently banning her." with "Following the suspension, the streamer posted several tweets reading, “the internet is hell”, “real life is hell, too” and “@twitch makes me want to DIE!!!!!”. After a fourth tweet in which she wrote, “I want to kill myself and shoot people at the twitch HQ!!! hahahaah!!”, Twitch initially reduced her suspension before permanently banning her." Ikemerue (talk) 07:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a single source here that supports the language "mass-murder of Twitch staff". I agree with Ikemerue's intent at the very least, this sentence is speculative at best, as it requires interpreting a now-deleted tweet in a specific way. The one source that is provided doesn't call Wright's language a threat of "mass-murder", but instead "threatened a shooting". --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree that current language is not good, I would prefer using Wright's own language - the fourth tweet of “I want to kill myself and shoot people at the twitch HQ!!! hahahaah!!”. I'm not sure about using the other 3 tweets though, what context does “the internet is hell”, “real life is hell, too” and “@twitch makes me want to DIE!!!!!” add other than that she was very upset that is not better expressed in the 4th tweet? Cannolis (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The context of this being a series of posts is relevant for showing what the situation was on Wright's side, leading into what the situation was for the internet media's side. I believe they are relevant to the situation being summarized and should be added alongside the fourth tweet as per the Dexerto article. Ikemerue (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Given the BLP considerations here, I really don't think incorporating text of now-deleted tweets – essentially, now-retracted primary sources – will rectify the issue at hand. Additionally, I can't find anything to corroborate "Twitch initially reduced her suspension before permanently banning her". This isn't mentioned in the Dexerto article, nor is it in the Vice article provided a couple sentences before this one.

So, with those things in mind, I propose changing "Wright returned to Twitch and in March 2022, was temporarily suspended after opening graphic content from a viewer on-stream. After Wright threatened to commit suicide and to mass-murder Twitch staff, Twitch initially reduced her suspension before permanently banning her." to "Wright returned to Twitch and in March 2022, was suspended after opening graphic content from a viewer on-stream. According to Dexerto, Wright then posted to Twitter, "to threaten self-harm and take a gun to Twitch HQ"." This relies on reporting by a secondary source and that source's interpretation (rather than inserting our own). It also uses a quotation, to make clear this isn't WP's voice.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The suspension reduction is mentioned in the dotesports reference (#24), it got split up when I inserted Wright's response and the Dexerto source. I wonder if we should elaborate on it a bit more, that article makes it sound like Twitch wasn't particularly bothered by the threats until other streamers on Twitch complained and then they permanently banned her.

Despite the potentially dangerous threats Narcissa made to the company, Twitch made the decision to reduce her ban. Only two weeks after her initial suspension, the speedrunning streamer’s ban was adjusted to 22 days. Twitch said in an email shared by the content creator that it made the decision after expressing remorse over her original statements. Several creators, including Twitch partner and OTK co-founder Mizkif, were outraged that Twitch allowed Narcissa back on the platform. But after her return to Twitch, Narcissa has been hit with another permanent suspension. “Twitch gave me another permanent suspension today,” the streamer said. “I guess all the replyguys hooping and hollering will be happy. I did send an appeal though…”

I'm on board with inline attributing Dexerto or another source though I'm not sure using that piece of Dexerto's language is sufficient - "taking a gun to Twitch HQ" is a bit unclear and perhaps euphemistic whereas the Dexerto headline was "Banned Twitch streamer threatens to "shoot people" at platform HQ" and Wright's own tweets were quite clear on shooting people, not just bringing a gun there. Cannolis (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the Dot Esports source, I somehow missed that. I do not agree that the language is unclear, but I can understand the point of disagreement. But also, WP:HEADLINES is clear that an article's headline is not an RS. So with that in mind, plus the Dot Esports source, and understanding that something a bit more direct would be preferred, how about the following: "Wright returned to Twitch and in March 2022 was temporarily suspended after opening graphic content from a viewer on-stream. According to Dot Esports, Wright then posted to Twitter to threaten both self-harm and "to shoot Twitch employees at the company’s headquarters". After Wright expressed remorse for the threats, Twitch initially reduced her suspension, before later permanently banning her." I'm hoping this is direct enough (but doesn't rely on an article headline) and adequately captures the timeline and some nuance, without going into excessive detail. --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ikemerue: what are your thoughts about where this discussion is going and the proposed changes? Additionally, if you think this would benefit from more attention, you may wish to request input at a relevant WikiProject by posting an alert about this discussion on a project's talk page. But please do not reopen this edit request until either the discussion ceases without a resolution, or we reach a consensus but no one implements that consensus. --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this edit with a very minor edit to change "employees" to "people" as the threat was much more generally just at anyone, and it's phrased as a quotation. So it would replace "Wright returned to Twitch and in March 2022, was temporarily suspended after opening graphic content from a viewer on-stream. After Wright threatened to commit suicide and to mass-murder Twitch staff, Twitch initially reduced her suspension before permanently banning her." with your edit "Wright returned to Twitch and in March 2022 was temporarily suspended after opening graphic content from a viewer on-stream. According to Dot Esports, Wright then posted to Twitter to threaten both self-harm and "to shoot Twitch people at the company’s headquarters". After Wright expressed remorse for the threats, Twitch initially reduced her suspension, before later permanently banning her." Ikemerue (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ikemerue: Well the quotation is from the provided article and is exactly how they describe the situation, so it cannot be changed in the way you suggest. I get that you want to use the tweet itself as a source, but given WP:BLP guidelines, I just do not see how we can rely on now-deleted tweets, especially when secondary sources are preferred. I think, in this case, the distinction between the exact language "people" and the quoted news source' determination of "employees" is trivial, and in fact the news source accurately interpreted the meaning behind the tweet. But if you feel so strongly about this single word, please do provide an alternative way to write this (with an accurate quotation).

Cannolis, what are your thoughts about the updated version I provided above? Do you think the quote I've used from Dot Esports isn't an accurate enough description of the deleted tweet? Or do you think it looks fine?

--Pinchme123 (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your edit in that case, as the original tweet has been deleted. Ikemerue (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that's fine, though I would suggest a slight wording change:

−

According to Dot Esports, Wright then posted to Twitter to threaten both self-harm and "to shoot Twitch employees at the company’s headquarters".

+

According to Dot Esports, Wright then made Twitter posts threatening both self-harm and "to shoot Twitch employees at the company’s headquarters".

Or something in that vein that should not change any meaning, just IMO "posted to Twitter to" is a bit awkward. Cannolis (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done I agree, your phrasing is less awkward and does not change the meaning. I've gone ahead and implemented this new language, with Cannolis' suggested phrasing. --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

References