Jump to content

Talk:2014 celebrity nude photo leak

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 1, 2014Articles for deletionSpeedily deleted
September 1, 2014Candidate for speedy deletionKept
September 2, 2014Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
March 16, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed

This should be moved to "The Fappening"

[edit]

I understand this was slightly contentious at the time and even the redirect from The Fappening was nominated for deletion because the nominator found it a "sophomoric [name] ... which has gotten traction in some of the lower-tier tabloid media/SEO blogs ... but which more proper media isn't giving the time of day" [source], but now, it seems obvious "The Fappening" is the most common way of referring to this even in established and respected media, seconded by "Celebgate" (which should also be bolded in the opening paragraph). "ICloud leaks of celebrity photos" is a mouthful of a Wikipedia neologism that has won zero traction in the news and in academic study.

Evidence: BBC

Fox News

WaPo

The Economist

Politico

The New Yorker

TIME Magazine

Furthermore, on Google Scholar, a search for "the fappening" generates 725 results, among them the following mentions, some in the titles of the papers:

On Google Books, I find a mention in the The Routledge Companion to Media, Sex and Sexuality: "In late August 2014, some of these issues allied to pornography, selfrepresentation and celebrity were captured in an event that was widely referred to as the 'Fappening', when online hackers of Apple's iCloud leaked sexually explicit images ..."

I think "The Fappening" with ease meets all the criteria outlined in WP:CRITERIA and it's obviously the most WP:COMMONNAME for the hack/leak. Also for people objecting to the crudeness of the moniker, remember that this is irrelevant per WP:NOTCENSORED: "Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia".202.214.167.167 (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 July 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is certainly no consensus, and arguably even a consensus against moving, when considering naming policy. Either way, it stays as is.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)  — Amakuru (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ICloud leaks of celebrity photos → The Fappening – I understand this was slightly contentious at the time and even the redirect from The Fappening was nominated for deletion because the nominator found it a "sophomoric [name] ... which has gotten traction in some of the lower-tier tabloid media/SEO blogs ... but which more proper media isn't giving the time of day" source, but now, it seems obvious "The Fappening" is the most common way of referring to this even in established and respected media, seconded by "Celebgate" (which I think should also be bolded in the opening paragraph). "ICloud leaks of celebrity photos" is a mouthful of a Wikipedia neologism that has won zero traction in the news and in academic study.

Evidence:

  • BBC: "Meet the man behind the leak of celebrity nude photos, called the fappening" [1]
  • "Edward Majerczyk will spend nine months in jail for what was widely known as the fappening or celebgate." [2]
  • Fox News: "Speaking of sex, the actor weighed in on "The Fappening" — the scandal involving the release of private celebrity nude photos and he said he's actually "scared" of the whole privacy invasion." [3]
  • WaPo: "What makes the Sony hack any different from the ‘Fappening’?" [4]
  • The Economist: "Then, when the iCloud hacking scandal broke - the so-called "Fappening" - they published a scathing indictment of anyone who had the nerve ..." [5]
  • Politico: "Eric Goldman, the co-director of Santa Clara University’s High Tech Law Institute, says: “If Gawker wins, I think it will further embolden online publishers that anything related to celebrities is fair game. That could be used to justify publication of unredacted photos from the Fappening [last year’s massive hack of celebrities’ nude photos], for example.”" [6]
  • "The nightmare continues for celebrities as more photos land online in what is turning out to be the Fappening 2.0." [7]
  • The New Yorker: "It also found a name—the Fappening." [8]
  • TIME Magazine: "Celebgate' Hacker Gets 18-Month Sentence for Hacking Celebrity Nude Photos" "What followed became known as Celebgate or “The Fappening,” in which private photographs from celebrities, including actress Jennifer Lawrence and model Kate Upton, were leaked online in September 2014." [9]

Furthermore, on Google Scholar, a search for "the fappening" generates 725 results, among them the following mentions, some in the titles of the papers:

  • "#Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit's algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures" [10]
  • "Analyzing Virtual Manhood: Qualitative Analysis of Fappening-Related Twitter Data" [11]
  • "This article engages with media responses to the 2015 Ashley Madison hack (which largely exposed the sexual details of adult heterosexual men) and the 2014 'Fappening' hack (which exposed private sexual images of adult female celebrities)." [12]
  • "In their study of Twitter response to The Fappening, the widely publicized 2014 nude photo hacking of hundreds of largely white, able‐bodied, heterosexual, cisgender, celebrity women, they found four distinct means by which online actors signaled masculine personas ..." [13]
  • "Celebgate: Two Methodological Approaches to the 2014 Celebrity Photo Hacks" "Internet users and media respondents have termed the phenomenon 'Celebgate' or, more popularly and vulgarly, 'The Fappening' (a portmanteau between 'happening' and 'fap'—slang for masturbation)." [14]

On Google Books, I find a mention in the The Routledge Companion to Media, Sex and Sexuality: "In late August 2014, some of these issues allied to pornography, selfrepresentation and celebrity were captured in an event that was widely referred to as the 'Fappening', when online hackers of Apple's iCloud leaked sexually explicit images ..."

Google ngrams: [15]

I think "The Fappening" with ease meets all the criteria outlined in WP:CRITERIA and it's obviously the most WP:COMMONNAME for the hack/leak. Also for people objecting to the crudeness of the moniker, remember that this is irrelevant per WP:NOTCENSORED: "Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia" 112.69.229.205 (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The proposer makes a convincing case that this is the common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose given that the article covers more than 1 incident it doesn't matter if popular media focussed on the first incident with the masturbation name. Also this appears to be an Americanism. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if it's an Americanism, it's used in British media too (BBC + The Economist are quoted above, you can dig up more with ease). 2001:240:2405:F113:21D4:B1F7:8342:9BD1 (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And from the opening paragraph, it seems pretty clear the article is about one specific group of leaks and this group of leaks is what's referred to as "The Fappening".2001:240:2405:F113:21D4:B1F7:8342:9BD1 (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the entirety of the article. In ictu oculi is clearly mistaken when he claims the article is about more than one leak.2001:240:2405:F113:21D4:B1F7:8342:9BD1 (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Calidum 01:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with hesitation - Many reliable sources were critical of calling it The Fappening, yet many still called it that. I'd also support a move to Celebgate, but Fappening is probably more specific.LM2000 (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's relevant to note that in the Google Trends data, "The Fappening" (including the "the") is somewhere between 20-60x more common than "Celebgate", and that "Celebgate" in turn is maybe 10-20x more common than "iCloud leaks of celebrity photos", as a search term. [16][17] 2001:240:2415:919:1959:E1CE:5F01:9658 (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there seems to be a consensus for moving the article, I've edited the intro (and some other parts of the article) to facilitate the move for whomever it is who will close the vote. If the closer decides there's no consensus they are of course free to revert my edits.2001:240:2406:1A0D:EDF0:951:281E:2030 (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't do that when a move discussion is ongoing, especially one on a page where there was prior discussion/debate about such a move.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There hadn'ｔ been any votes for the past 48 hours when I rewrote the intro and the vote had gone past the 7 days needeed and the consensus at the time clearly in favor of moving. I assumed the vote would be closed any time and the reason nobody was closing it was because rewriting the intro was daunting. (after that I saw the back log and realized votes aren'ｔ really closed that soon after they've elapsed). I was genuinely doing my best to be helpful so there's really no reason to use a mastering tone. I otherwise appreciate your contributions to this discussion.2001:240:2415:EC79:329B:4653:21F2:ACC9 (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All good. Tried to be polite and straightforward, apologies if it came across differently.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question There are obviously lots of high-caliber sources using the proposed term. But what I'm less sure of -- is there every a case where a high quality source uses this term to describe the subject, without immediately following it by the sort of descriptive title we currently use?--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really think that's relevant here. See WP:COMMONNAME. Would you expect the BBC to write about for instance quasars without immediately explaining what they are? 2001:240:2406:1A0D:E95C:99C5:F391:6E78 (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure about scientific concepts, but certainly events/incidents like Watergate scandal or Brexit, the common name can be used without needing descriptors. I'm trying to think of examples where we have the article's common name as X and it would be weird to see a newspaper run a sentence saying "We haven't seen an incident like this since X" without more description. --Yaksar (let's chat) 15:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But more importantly, the BBC seems to have published 9 article about Edward Majerczyk, the perpetrator. Of these, only one seems to use the proposed title. I would certainly be surprised if the BBC had 9 articles about quasars, only one of which actually called them quasars.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll concede that that's certainly a good argument for not moving it, as is the formatting of the similar "Sharpiegate" article. (not withdrawing the nomination though, just saying.)2001:240:2415:EC79:329B:4653:21F2:ACC9 (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I did a quick Google news search for "icloud celebrity hack 2014." None of the first articles coming up happened to use this name -- all used descriptive titles. I wouldn't argue against this term being widely used, but that does not mean it is more common than descriptive titles. The links shared in the nomination simply demonstrate that it is a valid title, not the most common one. Googling "jennifer lawrence 2014 photos hack" brings up about double "jennifer lawrence fappening" -- not to mention that the first page for the former seems to be all news sites, and for the latter all porn blogs.
    I'm reluctant to say an event's nickname has become enough of a common name for us to make it the page title over a descriptive one unless it can be used in reliable sources without needing a description to follow it up. Eg, Watergate or Me Too movement is fine, but Russiagate or Sharpiegate are redirects even though they may be the most commonly used succinct name of the topic.
    In short: the proposed titled is a commonly used name, but the most common way to describe the topic remains descriptive titles.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have no issue with a descriptive name change to something that reads better though, like 2014 celebrity photo hack or 2014 iCloud photo leaks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "2014 celebrity photo hack" would definitely be an improvement over the current title, I think. I think throwing in "iCloud" there is confusing (but my preference is still for The Fappening). 2001:240:2415:EC79:FD55:A2AE:11D7:4A13 (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:NEO states, "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And in this case, "no accepted short-hand term exists" applies to "The Fappening" having been significantly/sharply criticized. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't think WP:NEO is supposed to be applied to a word used in the BBC, the Economist, WaPo, etc.2001:240:2415:EC79:FD55:A2AE:11D7:4A13 (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But those sources seem to discuss the topic using descriptive titles without using the term at all far more than they do with the term. The common name in them seems to be using descriptive titles.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Being used in those sources doesn't stop the fact that "The Fappening" is a neologism. WP:NEO is clear that reliable sources may use neologisms. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    On a side note: As seen here and here, I alerted Wikipedia talk:Article titles and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to this discussion. I'm not alerting any other pages; I'll leave that decision up to others. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! 2001:240:241F:794C:8C6:DCB8:9C15:B628 (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, obviously. Existing name is more recognizable as described in WP:UCRN, and the use of "vulgar" names is specifically discouraged in that section. The use of NGrams in the move nomination makes me wonder if the nominator has actually read the relevant section, or is just thrown off by the shortcut "WP:COMMONNAME", which is somewhat misleading. As Yaksar notes, there may be better formulations of the descriptive title to be considered. VQuakr (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree that the current title is more recognizable than "the Fappening". I don't think a lot of people know that it was specifically related to iCloud. I sure didn't until I found the article. The reason I suggested the move is actually that I saw this in the Google results, but thought it must be about something else.
    From UCRN: "Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." The Fappening is magnitudes more common than any other name, so I don't believe it refers to masturbation is a big problem. (frankly it's not all that vulgar.) 2001:240:2415:EC79:FD55:A2AE:11D7:4A13 (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But it is far less common than coverage that only uses descriptive titles. I just did a google news search for the perpetrator, Edward Majerczyk, for example. Every single result on the first page did not include the proposed title.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • —Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NEO, we try to avoid neologisms, even if well supported in media. The name can be mentioned, the redirect can exist, but we should stay to a neutral title. --Masem (t) 03:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- I came here from BLPN due to a notice posted there. While I don't see any BLP violation here, per se, I never heard of this before, and linguistics interests me, so here's my two cents. The term is not one that has yet entered the mainstream language, thus the title should remain as is, until if and when that it does. I agree it's a neologism. It's based on a slang term that has not received treatment in reliable sources, and by that I mean reliable sources on words and the area of linguistics.
    Watergate is not a good example of a neologism. It's short for the "Watergate scandal", which was the name of the Hotel where it occurred, thus, really it's a descriptive title, as it should be. It eventually emerged as a neologism when it became a word ... or rather the suffix "-gate" became a word to refer to any scandal, mostly for attention-grabbing media headlines. The #metoo movement is similar, because that is the actual name of the movement. This event had no name except as a description of the event. The nickname given to it is a slang term that hasn't been defined in any dictionary nor been given any treatment by reliable sources in such matters, at least, as far as I can tell by what's posted here and what I've seen in my short search of google. (That's why I'm here, because I was like WTF is this.) If and when it enters the mainstream language, there will be sources that study it and show it themselves. For us to do it like what we have above is OR.
    Then there is the matter of formality. An encyclopedia is written in a very formal style, and even if this word gets past the neologism stage, it will likely remain a colloquialism for some time afterwards. We ain't be usin' no colloquialisms in encyclopedic writing because it sounds unprofessional and amateurish. Zaereth (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    When I read your comment yesterday, I got a good chuckle out of "That's why I'm here, because I was like WTF is this." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this vote fails, would it be uncontroversial to instead move the article to something like "2014 celebrity photo hack" (per Yaksar) or "2014 nude celebrity photo hack"? Or would a new vote have to be redone from scratch? 2001:240:241F:794C:8C6:DCB8:9C15:B628 (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, there is no hard and fast rule. As a rule of thumb though, if you think there could be potential opposition (even if minor) it's better to do it as a move request. Alternatively, the closing admin could determine a consensus out of this discussion, but that may be tough. I for one would support a better descriptive title. I think, to be on the safe side, you'd be better off making a proposal.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, a vulgarism, neologism, short term nickname and non-descriptive. If the article is focused on a single hack out of multiple notable iCloud hacks, then a RM proposal to add the year could be relatively simple, but if there really aren’t other hacks significant enough for individual separate articles, then another reason to keep a descriptive title, no need to create a stub for every minor event. Montanabw(talk) 20:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Childish and extremely disrespectful to the victims. If your first thought in an event like this is "whoo new material to fap to", something is wrong with you and I really don't think we, as wikipedia, should be seen encouraging that. I'm definitely not a prude, but I have a moral issues with referring to what essentially amounts to non-consensual pornography as a fapfest.I should make clear that I'm not accusing anyone here of thinking like this. My problem is entirely with the etymology and implications associated with the word itself. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rewritten intro

[edit]

VQuakr has twice reverted wholesale several edits I've made to the article, that I think overall were an improvement (though I'm sure it can be improved further and there might have been individual changes some might have had reason to oppose). VQuakr's rationale was "not an improvement, get a consensus". The changes were brought about by the above "Move" vote (which also I initiated), but the most recent incarnation was not dependent on the move happening. I moved the common names Fappening and Celebgate to the first sentence, bolded, mirroring the formatting in the "Sharpiegate" article intro. I replaced a vague/bland "there was criticism" line with a strong quote from one of the most vocal victims/critics (though some maybe prefer bland in their encyclopedic entries of course - I realize what would make a good magazine article isn't necessarily the same things that would make a good encyclopedic article). I added an expanded "etymology" section to explain the word "the Fappening" (and criticism against the term) once instead of twice. These changes don't seem particularly controversial to me and I just don't appreciate them being reverted, first without any rationale, then with a very unspecific "no improvement". I'm trying my best to improve the article and if there's some changes I did that weren't optimal, I feel other editors should be able to engage with them (and me) more constructively than just blanking what I've done. 2001:240:2415:EC79:329B:4653:21F2:ACC9 (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, thanks for starting this discussion. For reference, this is the proposed diff. The bold title format is not appropriate for this page given the descriptive title, per MOS:FIRST. I disagree with the promotion of the colloquial names to the first sentence, for the reasons mentioned in the move discussion above and more generally under the principle of least harm required by WP:BLP. The quote with cite is probably fine for the body of the article but is out of place in the lede. We don't describe whether something is "notable" in WP's voice for the reasons outlined at WP:NOTED. VQuakr (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to disagree in part with VQuakr, who I do agree with in the larger move discussion. I think having the alternate names in the first sentence or elsewhere in the intro is fine given that we are not questioning that they are commonly used alternative names. Per the guideline you cited, they certainly do not needed to be up there, but I think we can safely say readers arrive at this page through those redirects and would regardless not be shocked to see commonly used names noted up top.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yaksar: to be clear, the names are in the lede in both versions, and that change was one of a few in the proposed diff. VQuakr (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting a move to "2014 celebrity nude photo leak"

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved.

The proposer and two other editors support the move essentially per the WP:CRITERIA of precision and recognisability. Only one editor opposes the move, but as pointed out below, the opposition is out of policy.(non-admin closure) Havelock Jones (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ICloud leaks of celebrity photos → 2014 celebrity nude photo leak – I suggest moving this article to "2014 celebrity nude photo leak" because the current title, "ICloud leaks of celebrity photos" implies that 1) iCloud was involved in all the photos leaked (a reading of the article reveals they were not), and 2) that the article deals with all iCloud leaks of celebrity photos regardless of when or how they happened, when the article is actually specifically only about the "mega-leak" popularly dubbed "The Fappening". NEOGEO6 (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 16 February 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 09:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2014 celebrity nude photo leak → The Fappening – Per WP:COMMONNAME. It is almost always reffered to as "The Fappening" in the press and media. The current title feels like a mashup of words despite these events having a simpler, commomly agreed name as "The Fappening". I will move it to this in a week per WP:BOLD. Jennytacular (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_celebrity_nude_photo_leak&oldid=1212403704"