This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women writers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women scientists This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

She's mentioned in the books: Translating Anarchy and Thank You, Anarchy.

Thanks. But please do not remove material sourced to reliable sources, at least not unless there is a reliable source, or a self-published source from Justine Tunney, saying otherwise. If she, or her friends, believe that any claims in those sources are defamatory, I would recommend taking that up with those sources, and/or publishing a denial or rebuttal with specificity about which claims are contested, because just removing them from Wikipedia does not do much good if they are still published elsewhere.--greenrd (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't accusing someone of being a fascist, or supporting slavery, violate the BLP policy? Especially when your only source is a Gawker blog.

This article comes off as a smear/hitpiece, rather than a balanced article about somebody. 72.89.93.231 (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, she tweeted her support for slavery. All she has to do is claim it was a joke, and if she did that, we could add it to the article to provide balance. She hasn't done that. She's gone into denial about what she tweeted.--greenrd (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valleywag is a tabloid. I think we need a reliable source to include something like that, an accusation that someone supports slavery, before including it, considering the BLP issues. Putting aside the due weight issues.

Is there a BLP watchboard or something? I'd like to report this article for review higher up. Wikipedia isn't the place to signal-boost smears and hitpieces against people. That's why BLP exists. 72.89.93.231 (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I am very critical of Tunney but this article is a massive embarrassment that makes her critics seem childish and hyperbolic. It is a disgrace to her detractors and to Wikipedia. What is with the italics for emphasis and explaining what tweets "suggest"? This is not the place to try to convince people to dislike her.66.87.142.63 (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I invite any editors who have made recent bold edits to this BLP to seek discussion here first. I suggest that we be careful is ascribing literal meanings to blog posts made by a person - as clearly some of her posts are made with a sardonic or sarcastic overview. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's a bold edit? Aren't you just saying you want all edits to be discussed here first? Why?--greenrd (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section title "Opposition to democracy" and contents thereof, etc. I suggest you understand that what you appear to take literally, others would not take literally. Collect (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to add the enumerated demands of the now-deleted petition, viz:

1. Retire all government employees with full pensions.
2. Transfer administrative authority to the tech industry.
3. Appoint [Google Executive Chairman] Eric Schmidt CEO of America.

from http://www.dailydot.com/politics/occupy-wall-street-organizer-government-petition-google/ . Rationale: to spell out precisely what Tunney was asking for, in her own words (more or less, apart from the explanatory parenthetical added by the Daily Dot).--greenrd (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And which appears quite as serious as Art Buchwald's retelling of the Thanksgiving story. In the case at hand, I could easily read it as saying that the US government is currently acting precisely like a corporate monopoly. ("Our government is already a corporation. All we're doing here is finding a better corporation to run our government. " is exactly the wording appropriate to such a viewpoint.) Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and agree with your previous point that we should not assert that Tunney believes something which might be meant satirically or humorously. How about, as a general principle, we just write that Tunney "said" or "wrote" such-and-such, and leave it to the reader to decide whether or not she actually believes it. And to do that, the reader might benefit from having more context to hand, which argues for including in the article more context from the sources. In this case, I think including the demands, and the quote about the government being a corporation, would help readers to form a more complete picture. Then there is the other material from her interview with Quartz.com about why she created the petition. Again, I think including some more quotes from that, such as the ones I picked, would be helpful. At the very least, including the relevant sources in the References section would be helpful.--greenrd (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Where it is reasonably clear that satire or the like is intended, we ought not cite the quote as though it were in deadly earnest. For example, Mark Twain wrote about watermelons being grown on trees -- would you have us state in Wikipedia's voice "Mark Twain said 'watermelons grow on trees' "? I trust not. Collect (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so how about taking the opposite view. The Vice article outright says the petition was a troll - so can I add that it was a troll? If not, can I at least add that Vice described it as a troll?--greenrd (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Calling any living person a "troll" is an opinion at best, and a contentious opinion at that. I suggest you drop your stick here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to understand what's going on here. When I propose adding any information at all about the petition, it feels like you are against it because it's "clear" to you that the petition is not serious. When I propose saying that the petition is not serious, it feels like you are against that, too. I feel like I'm in some kind of Kafkaesque nightmare where I can't persuade you that it is right to add anything to the article about the petition - even another reference or two where readers can read more to find out more about the petition and make up their own minds.--greenrd (talk) 06:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me try another argument. Either Tunney's political writings are always unserious, in which case it is appropriate to write "Tunney said" in this context; or they are not, in which case I defy you, or anyone, to convincingly and comprehensively demonstrate which are serious and which are not! Poe's Law may be relevant here, especially as Tunney's political writing draws from obscure influences like Moldbug. In general, we simply cannot let our editing decisions be guided by our personal original research on what is and is not "genuine" in what someone says. That way lies endless subjective arguments, and the potential for contentious opinions, or even pretended opinions, to be wielded as a weapon to shape the article in an unduly positive or negative direction. --greenrd (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is no. Nor is it up to us to decide what is "serious" - we only use reliable sources - citing opinions only as opinions, and avoiding making any contentious claims about a living person which are simply matters of opinion. Collect (talk)

Response to third opinion request ( Disagreement about whether allegedly satirical or other allegedly non-serious content by the article subject should be included in the article. ):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Justine Tunney and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

The proposed referendum to abolish the US government, place administration under the tech industry and appoint Eric Schmidt as "CEO of America" is appropriate content for the article. At least two reliable sources and many less reliable sources provide in-depth commentary on that proposed referendum and its author, the subject of the article. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 06:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments: Before posting the above opinion, I read the article and all of the references as well at the discussion above. I Googled Justine Tunney and read through a lot of what I found written about and by her. I checked "What links here" and read the WP:AFD discussion. If I had participated in the discussion, I would have argued Keep. I followed and read many of the links in the article. I concluded that Tunney's notability is due in part to her incongruity. Greenrd and Collect, I hope you will work together to improve the article. Here are some of my observations:

• The lead paragraph doesn't approach acceptable per WP:LEAD.
• The article would benefit from addition of an infobox. Her birth name, full name, year of birth and more are openly available and won't invade her privacy. Full date-of-birth and address shouldn't be included for privacy reasons even if you find them unless widely published and well known some time in the future.
• The PC World article, current ref 4, is already a WP:404 dead link.
• WP:CITEKILL problems abound; the same ref is affixed to consecutive sentences where one citation at the end is adequate.
• The prose is..., well, I'll just say far from WP:GA quality. The first sentence under "Oogle and Rampage Toolz" is choppy, at best. The second paragraph contains a sentence that's four lines long with over 70 words.
• Per WP:ORDER, external links should be placed after the references.

My comments are intended to be constructive. I hope you find them helpful. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 06:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add a sentence on Tunney appropriating the OWS Twitter account to express support for the Gamergate movement (something completely unrelated to OWS). Any objections?--greenrd (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what long term note has it got? I just had to remove a load of content you added that was pure promo imo - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Justine_Tunney&diff=635817035&oldid=633926133 - Govindaharihari (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, and in the view of some of the journalists writing about Justine Tunney, her political statements and activities are the most noteworthy thing about her. You might disagree with that view, but please remember that some people (not just me!) do hold that view, and therefore it is reasonable to suppose that many of the readers of this article might seek (or appreciate) information about her political statements. Let me give you some context: I have been forbidden from including claims that she is a neoreactionary, supposedly because that is an "opinion", so I would like to instead show in detail what her political statements actually are, to let readers of this article make up their own minds about her politics. But currently, I don't feel that the article gives an accurate portrayal of her political statements, because it omits some things that were covered in independent third-party sources, so I am trying to fix that. Because of the above suggestion on "bold edits", I am trying to propose and then insert edits one at a time. So this is the second in a whole series. I expect this process to take many months, because no-one has indicated how long I should wait for replies on this talk page.--greenrd (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Govindaharihari, you said my content that you removed was "pure promo" - how on earth is it promotional to include the fact that Eric Schmidt is Tunney's ultimate boss? If anything, I think it makes her look bad (like a "corporate ass-kisser"). It is surely relevant information to include - it is one of the things that made the petition more noteworthy. I mean seriously, let's get real here - it made the whole incident funnier. You don't get how funny and cringe-inducing it truly was unless you realise that he is her ultimate boss. So it's surely relevant!--greenrd (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're correct there. The promo comment was just my opinon that all the minor detail about it isn't worth remembering. If others disagree I am also good with some replacement - I made a bold edit - as you are also encouraged by the wp:bold and then be available to discuss, best wishes and congratulations on your efforts here. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is fair that I should be asked to discuss edits first, and others should not be. This puts my edits at a massive disadvantage, which is not conducive to retaining me as an editor. Please, discuss all edits on this talk page first, unless they are to address perceived BLP violations or something (which have to be fixed quickly).--greenrd (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, Justine Tunney here. The text "Tunney takes control of the Occupy Wall Street Twitter account" is inaccurate because I always controlled the OccupyWallSt Twitter account. I was the one who registered it and I was involved in running it every single day since July 2011. So this statement is false. Jartine (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to improve it, but now the section reads very bizarrely - all mention of the controversy has now been removed (by other editors), so it's not super-clear what happened or why people got upset about it. I'll have a think about that.--greenrd (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a reddit posting where I talk about what happened with the Twitter account in depth. —Jartine (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, Justine Tunney here. Thank you for helping to keep this page fair. But is it really necessary to list every single one of silly embarrassing online monikers I used when I was 14, that were dug out of screenshots? Back when I was 14, I was known online exclusively by the name Oogle. The throwaway AIM screen names I used, like "Criminal Oogle" and "mutilated clown", or the completely absurd name "Milton the Communist Bunny Rabbit" which was used in some random copyright section—they aren't really relevant. It makes the page read like an FBI dossiér, rather than a biography. --Jartine (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've gotten rid of those - for now, at least. I feel that "Milton the Communist Bunny Rabbit" may be relevant to the article at some point, but I haven't written the part of the article where it would be relevant yet.--greenrd (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Tunney here. I noticed my bio was recently updated to describe me as a "black hat" and include information about Operation Rosehub (a "white hat" effort I organized at Google which kept thousands of open source projects safe from hackers.) I do not, and have never, identified as a "black hat." The media says the opposite about me. I have been commended by name by organizations like Tech Target and eWeek for my deep commitment to public service, as well as the impact I've had improving global software security. So I find it peculiar that details about my childhood where I posted scripts on a website with a banner while teaching myself Visual Basic, would be granted greater prominence in my biography. I'm 32 years old. Please consider that I was 14 years old when I started experimenting with technology. Are things like these genuinely worthy of public attention? I have a career. Jartine (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My judgement is that "black hat" is an objective descriptor. It is a common-sense differentiation. As for "greater prominence", I'm not sure that's true. They come first, but that's because I was trying to keep the content in each section in approximately chronological order. Wikipedia biographies should not be hagiographies, per WP:NPOV, and my personal view is that it is important to include a mixture of the positive and the negative in Wikipedia biographies where both are in the public record. Also, in that particular case, you posted some of the content online yourself long after the event, so perhaps you should be asking yourself some probing questions about why you posted that content in the first place if you didn't want it to receive "public attention"!--greenrd (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My judgement is that "black hat" is an objective descriptor. What an oxymoron.

This whole comment is highly inappropriate behavior by an editor. 2600:8802:571B:E00:E453:EB4B:FEA6:639 (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/occupy-wall-street-supports-gamergate/

• User:greenrd - technocratic fascist - you can't internally wiki-link to fascist in this situation - Govindaharihari (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Justine Tunney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826051629/http://valleywag.gawker.com/why-does-google-employ-a-pro-slavery-lunatic-1612868507 to http://valleywag.gawker.com/why-does-google-employ-a-pro-slavery-lunatic-1612868507

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell needs it apart from Justine and it friends? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.231.107 (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least me ! she's a well known developper, involved in various projects. It looks like you don't like her, but personal opinions are not a criteria for removing someone from Wikipedia. --Zeroheure (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justine here. I would be thrilled if Wikipedia removed me. I was ridiculed by websites like Gawker for behaving oddly on Twitter seven years ago. This article was written at that same time. All that stuff is pretty much forgotten and in the past, yet this Wikipedia page hasn't changed to reflect anything good I've done since then, so it continues to be enormously damaging to my life. Jartine (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no insight into any of this but the article as it is is presently indeed strange. Perhaps removal may be too harsh, but it should be heavily reworded and restructured. Right now it reads as if some of those who wrote it have some agenda. 2A02:8388:1602:6D80:C080:419D:679D:C9F8 (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They definitely do, as is evident from other comments on this page. 2600:8802:571B:E00:E453:EB4B:FEA6:639 (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are procedures for removing articles. Use those instead of trolling. 2600:8802:571B:E00:E453:EB4B:FEA6:639 (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose mentioning the trans-aspect is ok but ... why is a tumor mentioned? Is that really noteworthy?

IF it is really considered noteworthy then it should go into another sentence, because right now these two sentences together are just sooooo random and don't make a whole lot of sense to me. But I would actually drop the second sentence altogether since I don't see why it would be hugely relevant. 2A02:8388:1602:6D80:C080:419D:679D:C9F8 (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justine here. The edit that outs me as a trans woman was added a few minutes after a Hacker News user had posted a harassing comment talking about how outraged he felt that I misrepresented myself as a woman when I posted a link to my open source project. So there's little doubt in my mind that "Dingolover6969" is the same person. The comment was posted in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26271117 but dang (the Hacker News moderator) removed it, so you can email hn@ycombinator.com for confirmation. Also the whole tumor wording is creepy and it upsets me that this article talks about my personal health problems from nine years ago. Jartine (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jartine, I agree about the tumor and removed that sentence. The statement Tunney is a trans woman is backed by multiple sources, though, so I think it should stay. Rublov (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually looked up her Wikipedia page after researching her "αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε" blog post and git repository. The cosmopolitan libc and ape concepts are even referenced as further reading in the Fat binary page. Some other notable blinkelights should also have at least a phrase in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emgv23 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to +1 this suggestion. As an old-school software developer I only first heard of Justine Tunney a few days ago while researching and tangent-clicking through: SectorLisp -> Linux ports of OpenBSD's pledge() and unveil() -> Cosmopolitan libc -> αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε -> Redbean -> Blinkenlights -> etc... Only after being mind-blown by those prodigious engineering accomplishments (a very rare occasion as I've been coding a looong time myself - and almost never call anything higher than "...meh...") did I start to research the person behind it. I was then confused that almost nothing is written about that technology in general, including here on Wikipedia. From what I've been reading thus far it is clear there is a lot of noteworthy controversy outside of the purely technical stuff. I don't have the time to research and form personal opinions on any of that, and would probably second-guess any semblance of an opinion I would form anyway (especially because there seem to be so many contradictory, confusing, and confounding bits of information from otherwise trustworthy sources). Aside from all of that though it feels like a tragedy that those technical achievements are drowned out in the noise. As indication that I am not exaggerating the technical skill involved, look at some of the comments from others at this "Show Hacker News" post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26271117 (for example "There's engineering. There's academia. But this falls into straight-up wizardry.", "Everything she does has this level of jaw-dropping amazingness. Between her and Fabrice Bellard i don't know many people who consistently get my chin to hit the table.") — Donkeydonkeydonkeydonkey (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how is it that this rando has her own Wikipedia page, the LLaMA stuff is cool but this is not a blog site 189.217.25.218 (talk) 09:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And yet your comment is only suited to such a site. 2600:8802:571B:E00:E453:EB4B:FEA6:639 (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article stinks of self-aggrandization, it seems like it was written by Justine herself. I've noticed a pattern of this person wearing out her welcome in numerous online spaces by excessive self-promotion, claiming credit for the work of others, and making offensive/inflammatory remarks. The fact that she has appeared in person in this very talk page to argue for the article's deletion is even more sus, it seems like a reverse psychology sort of thing. Maybe I am leaping to conclusions, but after some brief googling she seems to me like a very brilliant software engineer who also happens to be a very manipulative internet troll and pathological liar, and this article is just her personal vanity article and it only exists because nobody cares enough to delete it. 50.86.77.162 (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very much a resume. I'm a well known CEO and had my page yanked (that someone else created) for being kinda like a resume - which I thought was perfectly reasonable. Not sure why this page exists - it's like "I'm a developer and here's some of the more interesting things I've worked on or been around." 207.32.161.137 (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]