Talk:Emily Gorcenski

Lenihan line
I see some back-and-forth regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emily_Gorcenski&type=revision&diff=899754304&oldid=899725527 a sentence] about Eoin Lenihan's view of a website Gorcenski runs, sourced to an article in Quilette by Lenihan. Two questions come to mind: Regarding the first question, the site hasn't been discussed much at WP:RSN; I see only an April 2018 discussion between three users where two opine it's reliable for an attributed opinion but doesn't guarantee inclusion since one must still ask whether the opinion is from an expert in the field they're talking about and/or is DUE, and an October 2018 discussion where one user opines it is not a reliable source (and another opines the author of the particular piece cited there was not competent, and no-one else besides the OP who asked about it seems to mention it). In general, I suspect the first discussion is right, that the source is reliable for what its authors' opinions are but that other sources are needed to establish how much weight those opinions are due ... which brings us to the second question, have other (reliable) sources reported on or taken this view? -sche (talk) 05:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) is Quilette a Reliable Source?
 * 2) is this view given enough WP:WEIGHT in reliable sources overall to be due inclusion?
 * Quilette is generally unreliable even as an opinion source. It's a blog site where they allow far-right activists and corporations to directly advertise themselves. There is a masthead, but I'd give a grain of salt to the factchecking, neutrality and accuracy of any "free speech" artists.
 * Eoin Linehan is a former teacher and a far-right harasser who pretend to be an expert on "far-left extremism". All search results of his name points to conservative and far-right sources, Breitbart and the like. Adding a sentence from Linehan implicating Gorcenski to "criminal harassment" is some serious BLP and neutrality violation, as well as factually horseshit. Linehan's opinion is obviously undue and doesn't belong anywhere on this project. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 05:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Quillette is a very libertarian magazine with very little editorial policy. FWIW they are expanding and one would think they need some editorial changes. As per WP:BLPSPS, Quillette should be avoided at WP:BLPs, especially those of perceived ideological opponents. It's always best to stick to WP:Reliable sources. Wrt Antifa links, as per WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:PUBLICFIGURE, material connecting Gorcenski to the violent non-organization Antifa must not be restored, as she has denied being their member and her website says she opposes violence (WP:SELFPUB is necessary here). That HuffPost article was written by someone who literally has a history of deliberate doxxing. Eoin Linehan is a saint when compared to him. This Al Jazeera article and this Vice News article discuss Gorcenski's doxxing. What's conspicuously absent from this Wikipedia article are doxxing, doxxing and swatting of Gorcenski. I must note that accusations of doxxing have to adhere to WP:PUBLICFIGURE, i.e. we should state if someone denies engaging in doxxing. Finally, you may not be aware of this but Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. And you're wrong anyway – is The Guardian allowing a far-right activist a byline by publishing this op-ed accusing Gorcenski of doxxing? I don't think so. So stop automatically calling people you disagree with "far-right".  w umbolo   ^^^  17:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Right-libertarianism, especially in the United States, is regarded as far-right, IIRC. And The Guardian piece isn't accusing or denouncing Gorcenski for doxxing, it's praising her tactics as very effective against the far-right. And Nazi doxxing and counterprotester doxxing aren't the same thing. One is "Here is the full address of this feminist, someone should kill her for a youtube video that I don't like" and the other is "This white supremacist of far-right group A works at XX local shop. This is bad and we should stop him somewhat." Stop making false equivalence statements and wrong characterizations of what RS portray this BLP subject. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 18:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And are you seriously granting saintship to Eoin Lenihan, far-right troll previously known as "progdad" whose only evidence of "journalists linked to ANTIFA" was a few followings on Twitter? Defending someone with a history of being banned from Twitter and Facebook for initiating harassment campaigns is sure a great look, bud. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not gonna click that. It's Going Down has published doxes . I didn't say that Quillette doesn't publish the far-right, though when I said "libertarian", I meant more like "free to publish articles of various ideologies" than the U.S. libertarianism (the wiki article is more nuanced in the description, it's "libertarian-leaning"). About the Guardian article, are you saying that "Emily Gorcenski [...] has participated extensively in doxxing far right figures [...]" does not verify that Gorcenski doxes far-right individuals? And doxxing is a completely separate concept from advocating violence.  w umbolo   ^^^  19:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Lol, It's Going Down and First Vigil, both explicitly partisan extremist websites that are used daily to dox people and ruin lives, are legitimate sources, but Quillette is 'far-right' and unacceptable. Honk Honk. Tsumikiria is an avowed antifa supporter and spends a large part of their day deleting anything negative about antifa from wikipedia. Don't believe me? Take a gander at the edits on their talk page. This is a preposterous argument born out of ideologues unwilling to present a neutral perspective of "their team". The only reason this is even being debated is because of Tsumikiria deleted the neutral edit because of personal disgust, while claiming a non-specific BLP violation. It is naked gate-keeping, and a blight on this website. ^v^   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.64.102.145 (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to Emily specifically referring to HER OWN site, First Vigil, as a dox repository, validating the contentious claim made by Eoin Lenihan in his Quillette article. https://twitter.com/EmilyGorcenski/status/1094164727964622848  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.64.102.145 (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Trump's statements
with regards to your edit, if you go to Unite the Right rally, Trump says "you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides." and talks about the statue and the park. After that you have a reporter saying "George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same." and Trump replying and asking a question to which the reporter replies "I do love Thomas Jefferson." Then Trump goes back to the issue and says "[...] I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally". Where is the "rounds of criticism" you describe between Trump saying "people that were very fine people, on both sides" and "I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally"? If Trump were unwilling to criticize neo-Nazis, why did he do exactly that a few moments later... w umbolo  ^^^  19:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

'To accomplish this [doxing] she created First Vigil'
This is not the best wording we can use. First Vigil isn't a 'doxing' site - per the source (Vice), Gorcenski says "It cannot therefore be used as a doxing tool, as it is merely covering things that are already in public record.". How can we rephrase this? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources state it is doxing; I've ✅ her explanation to the article. w umbolo   ^^^  08:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Which sources say that Gorcenski created the site First Vigil to dox people? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Vice article lists several instances of doxing before referring to it as such and describing the website as facilitating it (including future plans to dox). Gorcenski obviously denies the doxing, but the source casts doubt on her statement. w umbolo   ^^^  08:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Vice article does not do this. I've read the Vice article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to continue insisting the source does cast doubt on her statement, or refers to the website as facilitating doxxing (and planning to do so in the future), please quote directly from the source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Emphasis mine:
 * “These organizations are very fluid,” Gorcenski said. “And in order to effectively track what they're doing, why they're doing it, where they're meeting, who they’re meeting with, and what their motivations are, you have to understand the internal dynamics of how they work. And so we are trying to basically build a resource that is not just a database, but a way to contextualize all of that.”
 * Gorcenski pointed to a recent New York Times Magazine article about a shooting after a Spencer rally in Gainesville, Florida. [...] Gorcenski tracked down the original arrest report and found the fourth person’s name. She also learned that the fourth person gave a false address during the arrest that linked back to a fifth person, a well-known Nazi in the Houston area. That fifth person wasn’t in the Jeep, but was in Gainesville at the time of the shooting. Gorcenski had uncovered another link in the network.
 * So here we already have Gorcenski providing an example ("Gorcenski pointed to...") of doxing (I'll get to this later) that is provided ("contextualized") by First Vigil ("we are trying to basically build a resource").
 * “We’re actually uncovering these connections as we’re doing this work,” she said. “The story isn’t just the shooting. There’s so much more to it than that.”
 * So doxing ("uncovering these connections"; "so much more to it than [the shooting]") happens as a result of First Vigil ("this work").
 * First Vigil is publicly accessible, and digs into the details the SPLC leaves out. (emphasis mine)
 * Doxing. (I'll get to this later)
 * The court cases are the first piece of what Gorcenski envisions as a larger, crowdsourced database. [...] Gorcenski’s longer term goal is to turn First Vigil into a place where people can go to a fascist rally, take pictures of the participants, and upload them. She wants to archive and document known white nationalists online, forever.
 * “The Nazis hate it,” Gorcenski told me. “People go to hearings… They take notes and they send me pictures. And all of that is going to be part of the system eventually, to make all that knowledge known.”
 * These are the future plans to dox. How do I know that's doxing? The next paragraph in the source (which probably also refers to the above instances of doxing):
 * Doxing and public shaming is a popular tactic employed by both the political right and left right now, but there are dangers to doing it, regardless of who is being doxed. When you reveal someone's identity on the internet in a heated context like this, even when they’re people accused of horrendous crimes, you have no control over how the mob reacts.
 * And for casting doubt on Gorcenski's claim: (emphasis mine) Gorcenski, however, believes that because First Vigil uses public court documents, it is fair game.
 * The source clearly only quotes Gorcenski for her disputing the doxing, and does not state it as fact, while it does state as fact that the website facilitates doxing (and provides a paragraph about doxing after listing all of the instances of doxing and the future plans to dox). w umbolo   ^^^  09:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in this piece does it say that First Vigil participates in doxing, or is used for doxing. Your quotes help explain your analysis of the source, but the source does not come to the conclusions you come to. We can only say what the source says. This is explained further in WP:OR.
 * This is an article about a living person, and the content is about a living person (specifically, we are currently saying that the site First Vigil was created by Gorcenski to dox people.) This isn't okay without a source saying that - we can't use our own analysis to claim this. I've made changes with that in mind. If you find other sources that do specifically claim this (not your own analysis of the source), please bring them up here on talk. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources about a Gorcenski (need secondary sources)
Some things added in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emily_Gorcenski&type=revision&diff=910193483&oldid=907579823 diff] seem like improvements but others (especially in the Early life section) are only sourced to primary sources that mention a Gorcenski. We need secondary sources to establish not only whether the information is important ("due"), but whether the Gorcenski is this Gorcenski... especially for the primary sources that don't even mention Emily Gorcenski, but a different name without any RS being provided to establish that they refer to the same person. (This is giving me flashbacks to when the Marsha P Johnson article cited a flickr photo of a birth certificate that had a male name on it, and did not have Marsha P Johnson anywhere on it, as a reference for the claim that that was Marsha P Johnson's birth name.) -sche (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed the content for now via [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emily_Gorcenski&type=revision&diff=910906664&oldid=910875798 diff]. -sche (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Edited by subject?
Major additions to this page were made in August 2019 by an IP here from Berlin, where Gorcenski resides, so it is possible that Gorcenski may have edited this page. Edits also included an embedded link to Gorcenskis' 'First Vigil' website and some un-encyclopedic languag "inspired". Just saying. I have removed the embedded lk and replaced 'inspired' with 'led'. Regards, 220  of  Borg 06:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Another Berlin IP here. 220  of  Borg 06:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

delete as not notable?
This is a blogger whose biggest claim to fame is doxing people. Why do we have such a vanity wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.79.67 (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this person is not notabale whatsoever. This article should be deleted, as the sourcing is already very bad in the first place. --76.94.74.133 (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Notability is determined primarily through the general notability guidelines (WP:GNG). If you feel that this article fails those, you are free to nominate it for deletion. I predict that it would not be kept, but I have been wrong before. Jlevi (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I added a WP:N proposed deletion. another user removed it without any discussion. please add discussion here. this individual lacks notability (seems to be a private person with a big twitter following). 69.127.80.46 (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously, this is complete nonsense and I suspect that you know that. The article is more than adequately referenced to demonstrate notability and the tagging and kvetching is purely disruptive. Please stop this. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The only "notability" this person has is basically self-referential (it mentions their Twitter feuds and "doxxing" of people). This person is an internet troll. Does every internet troll get a Wikipedia article? 69.127.80.46 (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Twitter-sourced additions today
added substantial material that is entirely sourced to Twitter. It's also extremely contentious, self-serving, and looks to make claims about third parties. It fails WP:BLPSPS. Let's remove it. Elizium23 (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove. It was not sufficiently sourced when it was added back in November, and it still isn't. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

new profile in the Guardian
[//www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/01/white-supremacist-protest-activism-emily-gorcenski]. May be useful as a source; I haven't had time to read the whole thing yet. -sche (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Alleged
Hello, I agree that "alleged" was overused in the article to cast doubt on Gorcenski's statements, but in order to conform to WP:NPOV we are dealing with unproved claims made by Gorcenski, and so we must observe WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to attribute the descriptions to Gorcenski, not say them in Wikipedia's voice, without a preponderance of reliable secondary sources that would support such labeling. Elizium23 (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with any of that. The purpose of First Vigil is to document crimes by white nationalists. That's a true fact about the site. Are all the people on the site actually white nationalists? I don't know, but we're not claiming that they are, only that that is the intended purpose of the site.
 * We don't apply the standard you're seeking anywhere else. When Andy Ngo says his injuries were caused by antifa, we don't say "alleged antifa" even though neither we nor he can know for sure if the particular people who punched him identify as antifa or not. Loki (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , First Vigil is not a reliable source, Gorcenski is not a reliable source, where are the reliable sources in all of this?
 * And yes, we would say that "Andy Ngo says his injuries were caused by Antifa" and we would not say "Andy Ngo's injuries were caused by Antifa" without a WP:RS to back it up. Elizium23 (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't though: In November 2018, Ngo live-streamed the #HimToo Rally organized by a Patriot Prayer member in downtown Portland, and was sprayed with silly string by antifascist protesters. with two sources, neither of which source the identity of the assailant to anyone who is not Andy Ngo, followed directly by In May 2019, Ngo was pepper-sprayed by an antifascist activist while recording a fight in Portland., again sourced to a source which says directly that "Ngo claimed" this happened. (Matter of fact, I think this is a situation where we might want to say Ngo claimed it, but the page is admin-protected.)
 * As for this page, I agree that neither Gorcenski nor First Vigil are themselves reliable sources for the white nationalist beliefs of the people documented there, but since that's the purpose of the site and it's not likely to be challenged (as the site says, many of them have swaztika tattoos, have been filmed in public saying "Jews will not replace us", or in general have similar strong indications that they are in fact white nationalists), we can go on saying that it's a site whose purpose is to document indictments of white nationalists, while letting the reader implicitly understand that the fact that that's its purpose does not mean the organization is necessarily 100% reliable at identifying them, in the same way as describing the John Birch Society as "anti-communist" does not mean it always correctly identified communists.
 * Maybe a better analogy, here's the second sentence of the article on the SPLC: Based in Montgomery, Alabama, it is known for its legal cases against white supremacist groups, its classification of hate groups and other extremist organizations, and for promoting tolerance education programs. It's not known for legal cases against allegedly white supremacist groups or its classification of alleged hate groups even though we specifically later in the article mention criticism of its classifications. Loki (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , WP:OTHERCONTENT Elizium23 (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also FWIW, we actually do have two sources of the claim, neither which use allegedly:
 * this Guardian article, which says the 38-year-old data scientist has been exposing members of the far right and cataloguing white supremacist violence across the US through her site, First Vigil.
 * this Vice article, which says With the help of other activists, Gorcenski built First Vigil, a list of court cases tied to white nationalists.
 * So if you insist on "reliable sources", there's your reliable sources. Loki (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * After looking at the cited sources, I found the first several "she says" edits are attached to statements presented as fact in the associated articles. Given this, as well as the examples given by, I've stripped out the remaining "she says" statements added recently. Jlevi (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * After looking at the cited sources, I found the first several "she says" edits are attached to statements presented as fact in the associated articles. Given this, as well as the examples given by, I've stripped out the remaining "she says" statements added recently. Jlevi (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Notability
How is this person notable and why do they need a Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:21B:A200:C8F5:624E:E00D:78C7 (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * She meets the criteria in WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)