Talk:Empress (cracker)

Pronouns

@Digital.Maniac: MOS:GENDERID states "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources". If the subject refers to herself using feminine gendered language, then that is what we should use in the article. Mbdfar (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest to leave the article as it is now, with your last edit, stating that real subject's identity is not verifiable at this point. Digital.Maniac (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay but if the subject herself uses those pronouns, why does their gender need secondary verification anyway? The MOS is clear. Wired did an interview with her, they obviously would have verified pronouns before publication with a headline that explicitly states "woman". Mbdfar (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

We can't know for sure whether Wired verified anything or not -- it is not stated explicitly. As I've mentioned before in the main page's edit commentary, information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable. Gender information of the subject was not a centerpiece of source's interview, hence it is a subject to further verification, for neutrality's sake. Digital.Maniac (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Imo that's like saying we don't know that her name is Empress because her name wasn't the centerpiece of the interview. Mbdfar (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Whilst these two rules of Wikipedia are in contradiction to one another, I would suggest to leave the wording as lax as possible, to avoid any kind of bias. Digital.Maniac (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Would you question the New York Times if they used gendered pronouns after an interview? Mbdfar (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, here you can find unambiguous statements that Empress identifies as a woman. Sourcing should be acceptable due to WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:REDDIT. Especially in conjunction with the Wired interview, which again, is a source specifically listed as generally reliable at WP:RSP which means "the source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team". Again, MOS:GIDINFO would suggest that she/her pronouns are appropriate and that use of the singular they in this context is not universally accepted. Mbdfar (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

In addition, as per my last edit summary, not just Wired, but also TorrentFreak [1], Techspot [2], and Gamelevate [3] use she/her pronouns. Not that it even matters, because GIDINFO is clear. I would encourage you to read it. Mbdfar (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

IMO, sourcing from the Reddit is not acceptable, since there's no verification to the EmpressEvolution account and/or subreddit -- hence it can't be definitively stated whether it's operated by the subject of the article to use this as a reliable source. Yes, you would counter with "everyone knows whose subreddit this is", which makes further discussion all the more pointless, but still. I truly believe that you are twisting WP:RSP beyond recognition, and that using unverified posts from Reddit to (air quotes)conclusively state(end air quote) per GIDINFO is irresponsible at the very least.Digital.Maniac (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually it can, via the TorrentFreak article listed above (being familiar with WP:RSP, you will see TorrentFreak listed as reliable). That article directly links to this post in the prose, posted by the reddit account 0xEMPRESS. That is the author of the cited reddit post ([4]). Mbdfar (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

And for the record, I never cited reddit with RSP as justification, I used WP:REDDIT and WP:SELFSOURCE, which you've refused to acknowledge. I fail to see how I'm (air quotes)twisting RSP beyond recognition(end air quote) Mbdfar (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

It it not even clear that "Empress" is a single individual so debating whether or not the "she" pronoun is used may not matter. JSory (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Cracker?

Here are always been two words for people who braking in software defenses: hackers and crackers. Hackers do not do harm. They brake in, look around and leave. And crackers who steal the data and sell it. Why you call Empress a cracker, when she is sharing it's work for free? She is clearly is a hacker. 178.173.21.162 (talk) 06:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Because the sources call her a cracker.

Mbdfar (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you be more specific and/or share your opinion on the subject? I think page should be renamed to "EMPRESS (hacker)" Axet (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

All the sources referenced in the article either outright call the subject a cracker or say that the subject cracks. Mbdfar (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@178.173.21.162 She ended up selling the cracks and demanding money to release the near the end of her career Itsrobbeh (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

She ain't nothing special. Just another person with an inflated ego and misguided views 2606:6080:1001:16:3492:5F11:F1FB:66AE (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Controversial NFOs

The Controversies section of this Wikipedia article only states that her NFOs are 'often containing offensive language', and that she 'expressed dissatisfaction with what was described as the "woke system" of today.'

Empress has repeatedly stated much more blatantly offensive things in her NFOs, such as ableist and homophobic slurs, and many more instances of hateful speech, which I feel that the article heavily downplays.

I would edit in changes myself, but I tend to struggle with finding non-primary/valid sources, and this is no exception.

Citations taken from https://github.com/model-map/EmpressNfo. Moosetwin (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

References