This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Adam Baldwin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
So, we're just gonna pretend that he didn't use Twitter to publicize his hateful outrage over gay marriage? On February 21, 2014, he wrote, "What’s wrong, now, with a father marrying his son for love & to avoid tax penalties?" I have a feeling it would be in the article if it weren't being created by his fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:8403:1CC0:749E:A36D:75DD:2959 ( talk) 06:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Wasn't he also in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and possibly Angel?
Buy More is listed with 4 episodes. The Link goes to the Store from Chuck, there is no mention that "Buy More" is a spinoff or whatever - Wrong Link or what is this "Buymore"? Update: According to IMDB "Buy More" is a special addition to the DVD-Boxes of Chuck. I dont see it as "Television work", its just extras for a DVD. Shuld be removed imho.
While no doubt some people involved did suffer harassment, referring to #GamerGate as a harassment campaign is not a neutral reference; it takes one side and opposes the other.
I changed the reference to say "Baldwin's views" rather than "Baldwin's involvement in the harassment campaign". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.151.247 ( talk) 22:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
@ ChiveFungi:, you recently updated this section to the non-neutral term with no explanation, no talk page discussion, and no clear source of support from the host article. When reverted and asked to discuss in the talk page, you instead engaged in an rerevert with no elaboration. Please offer that elaboration here as to why your addition makes the article better and why it doesn't fall afoul of neutrality guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squatch347 ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for the response and clarification. I'm not sure that that revert is suggested by the article you linked, but I agree that the section needs an update. I've taken a look at the sources and made a few changes based primarily on the book citation, which references his claiming credit for the hashtag, but neither it nor the other sources claim the videos promote harassment. Phrasing it as promoting videos that discuss the harassment better aligns with NPOV. Nor does the WAPO article use the phrase harassment campaign, nor indicate that Baldwin was involved in the harrassment of Quinn (or others). Given that this is a BLP, we need to be very careful insinuating that involvement without strong external sources.
I also edited the title down to just Involvement in GamerGate since the topic matter seems broader and that title better suits the topic's range.
Happy to discuss these edits or anything in the sources I might have missed. Squatch347 ( talk) 16:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Those were not small changes, and you're still ignoring the mountain of reliable sources which describe this as a harassment campaign. "Controversy" is inappropriately euphemistic in this context, because the only thing being "controverted" is whether or not it's okay to harass women for having opinions about games. Wikipedia does not ignore this under the veneer of false neutrality, because harassment is antithetical to our goals as an encyclopedia. I have removed both your addition and the previous quote, as they appeared to be cherry-picking. It is not up to us as editors to arbitrarily pick which quotes we think clarify his position. Unless there is a specific reason to include specific quotes based on independent sources, we should summarize reliable, independent sources in our own words. Grayfell ( talk) 17:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I have been doing research on this topic, and contrary to the current popular opinion, and the slanted view that the main wikipedia page for Gamergate provides, Gamergate was not in fact an organized harassment campaign. As always, there are fringe elements comprised of Trolls on the Internet that will attempt to hijack campaigns in attempt to further their own warped beliefs and views. By no means was any of the bulk of Gamergate comprised of this fringe element that attempted to use it for their attacks on women and minorities. Gamergate is and was always about the collusion of a segment of the Gaming Press to lump the Gaming Community as a whole in with this fringe element. Gamergate did not explode into the general consciousness of the wider community until the infamous day of the "Gamers are dead" posts. Naturally, anyone can find and cites sources that call Gamergate a harassment campaign, because many of these sources are in themselves slanted towards that view. Anyone who cares enough to dig through the slog of this debacle can see that there was clear harassment on both sides - the anti-Gamergate fringe element clearly organized campaigns of harassment against TFYC and Candace Owens, but again were by no means the majority of those who opposed Gamergate, just as the majority of those who supported Gamergate were not part of any harassment campaign. As this relates to the small blurbs on this wikipedia page regarding Adam Baldwin, the "alleged relationship" mentioned was confirmed by both Kotaku and Grayson after the fact. HanokOdbrook ( talk) 13:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Adam Baldwin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
So, we're just gonna pretend that he didn't use Twitter to publicize his hateful outrage over gay marriage? On February 21, 2014, he wrote, "What’s wrong, now, with a father marrying his son for love & to avoid tax penalties?" I have a feeling it would be in the article if it weren't being created by his fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:8403:1CC0:749E:A36D:75DD:2959 ( talk) 06:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Wasn't he also in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and possibly Angel?
Buy More is listed with 4 episodes. The Link goes to the Store from Chuck, there is no mention that "Buy More" is a spinoff or whatever - Wrong Link or what is this "Buymore"? Update: According to IMDB "Buy More" is a special addition to the DVD-Boxes of Chuck. I dont see it as "Television work", its just extras for a DVD. Shuld be removed imho.
While no doubt some people involved did suffer harassment, referring to #GamerGate as a harassment campaign is not a neutral reference; it takes one side and opposes the other.
I changed the reference to say "Baldwin's views" rather than "Baldwin's involvement in the harassment campaign". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.151.247 ( talk) 22:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
@ ChiveFungi:, you recently updated this section to the non-neutral term with no explanation, no talk page discussion, and no clear source of support from the host article. When reverted and asked to discuss in the talk page, you instead engaged in an rerevert with no elaboration. Please offer that elaboration here as to why your addition makes the article better and why it doesn't fall afoul of neutrality guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squatch347 ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for the response and clarification. I'm not sure that that revert is suggested by the article you linked, but I agree that the section needs an update. I've taken a look at the sources and made a few changes based primarily on the book citation, which references his claiming credit for the hashtag, but neither it nor the other sources claim the videos promote harassment. Phrasing it as promoting videos that discuss the harassment better aligns with NPOV. Nor does the WAPO article use the phrase harassment campaign, nor indicate that Baldwin was involved in the harrassment of Quinn (or others). Given that this is a BLP, we need to be very careful insinuating that involvement without strong external sources.
I also edited the title down to just Involvement in GamerGate since the topic matter seems broader and that title better suits the topic's range.
Happy to discuss these edits or anything in the sources I might have missed. Squatch347 ( talk) 16:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Those were not small changes, and you're still ignoring the mountain of reliable sources which describe this as a harassment campaign. "Controversy" is inappropriately euphemistic in this context, because the only thing being "controverted" is whether or not it's okay to harass women for having opinions about games. Wikipedia does not ignore this under the veneer of false neutrality, because harassment is antithetical to our goals as an encyclopedia. I have removed both your addition and the previous quote, as they appeared to be cherry-picking. It is not up to us as editors to arbitrarily pick which quotes we think clarify his position. Unless there is a specific reason to include specific quotes based on independent sources, we should summarize reliable, independent sources in our own words. Grayfell ( talk) 17:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I have been doing research on this topic, and contrary to the current popular opinion, and the slanted view that the main wikipedia page for Gamergate provides, Gamergate was not in fact an organized harassment campaign. As always, there are fringe elements comprised of Trolls on the Internet that will attempt to hijack campaigns in attempt to further their own warped beliefs and views. By no means was any of the bulk of Gamergate comprised of this fringe element that attempted to use it for their attacks on women and minorities. Gamergate is and was always about the collusion of a segment of the Gaming Press to lump the Gaming Community as a whole in with this fringe element. Gamergate did not explode into the general consciousness of the wider community until the infamous day of the "Gamers are dead" posts. Naturally, anyone can find and cites sources that call Gamergate a harassment campaign, because many of these sources are in themselves slanted towards that view. Anyone who cares enough to dig through the slog of this debacle can see that there was clear harassment on both sides - the anti-Gamergate fringe element clearly organized campaigns of harassment against TFYC and Candace Owens, but again were by no means the majority of those who opposed Gamergate, just as the majority of those who supported Gamergate were not part of any harassment campaign. As this relates to the small blurbs on this wikipedia page regarding Adam Baldwin, the "alleged relationship" mentioned was confirmed by both Kotaku and Grayson after the fact. HanokOdbrook ( talk) 13:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
References