Talk:Madeleine Roux/Archive 1

Clear bias
There's always a bias on Wikipedia, after all nothing can be 100% neutral, but oh my Lord how to even begin here? "Roux made several comments described by some as "anti-male" and "anti-white."

First of all "by some"? If anyone said the opposite about literally any other race there would be public outrage, she literally said "White people must be stopped", how is that now considered by most people, anti-white?

Second of all, anti-male and anti-white? What even is anti-white? Anti-white, aka against the white race, aka racism, same goes for anti-male, why anti-male and not sexist? It's clear she discriminates and insults people based on their race and gender, and yeah she is white herself but still, this is literally the white equivalent of Jesse Lee Peterson.

Omir Laa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omir Laa (talk • contribs) 15:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree, she factually made racist and sexist comments. It's also a fact that any attempt to point this out is censored out and that the article is locked repeatedly. Some influential group of editors clearly does not believe in objectivity. A shame, really. 2003:D2:DF20:D900:20CF:ACBE:FDCB:4723 (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I came to the talk page to make a similar statement, so I'll just put it in this section. I can understand a lot of the reverts that were done, as well as the locking, because almost all of the edits were lacking in references and basically just personal opinions, and there was a lot of edit-warring to try to maintain those opinions. However, it remains that Roux did tweet these things (with almost all archived here) and there has been genuine and significant public controversy over her employment by Blizzard as a result, which a few of the edits were trying to document. It should be possible to document this history here without stating our personal opinions: I think this is noteworthy. Felice Enellen (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Refer the reader to the archived tweets, possibly quoting one or two of the more obvious offenders (e.g. on 8 Nov 2016, "Oh white men. Are you sad? Are you impotent? Are you desperate for validation u don't deserve?" or, on 28 Nov 2018, "White people must be stopped...")
 * Neutrally summarize the more prominent and relevant responses, giving reference urls.