Talk:Adam Baldwin

Homophobic tweets

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)

TV Appearances

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.

He was in Angel, as big hitter Hamilton at the end.

Where is The Last Ship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.40.22 (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Removed reference to #GamerGate as a "harassment campaign."

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)

Update to include "Conspiracy Theory"

@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)

Hi. I didn't add "conspiracy theory". Rather, 73.162.30.9 removed "conspiracy theory" ([1]) and I reverted them as they did not provide a rationale in their edit summary.

I've edited the article to add a Washington Post source, and as the source calls Gamergate a "harassment campaign" rather than a "conspiracy theory", I've updated the text to reflect that. --ChiveFungi (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

Wikipedia is not a platform for WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories, nor for legitimizing harassment campaigns. Sources are absolutely overwhelmingly clear that Gamergate is a harassment campaign. Grayfell (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell, I 100% agree with you that we need to be wary of advocating any conspiracy theory or whitewashing an issue. I'm sure you're correct that multiple, reliable sources can be provided showing that Gamergate was a harassment campaign. In fact, the host Gamergate page makes that pretty clear. What I'm asking is, do the sources provided on this page specifically relate that harrassment, as described in our article, to Adam Baldwin? The specific sources referenced don't seem to make that connection (unless I'm missing something) and the article, as read now, makes an inferential connection. Inferential connections are OR, and we need to be very careful of making an inferential connection between a harassment campaign and BLP, for reasons I'm sure are obvious.

Again, I'm certainly open to there being some quote from the source I missed, or a reliable source that makes that connection, but as presented now, this page's claims are not supported by its sources. Squatch347 (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

No, repeating context which is already provided by a cited, reliable source is not original research. Grayfell (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell (talk), that is exactly my point. The reliable source referenced does not make the assertion this article claims. Neither the Washington Post article nor the IGI Global article credit Baldwin with originating the tag, both point to other sources. However, both do mention that he claimed credit, hence my edit.

More importantly, neither article even remotely mentions his involvement in the harassment campaign, so a title of "involvement with harassment campaign" seems a bit unwarranted, as do any implications that he supported harassment of someone. In line with WP:BLP: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

I've reverted it to the more conservative text I had, not as a "final" answer, but to comply with WP:BLP policy of removing contentious material without waiting for discussion. If we can get to consensus here, I'm happy to revert back. Squatch347 (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

There is an astonishingly large number of reliable sources which try to explain what Gamergate is, and most, if not all, mention harassment. Perhaps not all of them use the word "harassment campaing", but the substance of this description is extremely well-supported. This source is of note because it specifically mention show Wikipedia vandalism was used as a tool of harassment by Gamergaters, while also mentioning Baldwin's role. This book contains an entire chapter titled "Gamergate: A Case Study in Online Harassment" which mentions Baldwin's role at least twise. This one calls it "a coordinated campaign of abuse and harassment" in one paragraph and then in the following paragraph says "This movement became known as 'Gamergate' on 27 August when actor Adam Baldwin...". There are countless more sources available. Grayfell (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits and additional links Grayfell. I think your edit is getting us much closer. I made a small grammar change and added a bit more clarity to what the videos were about. I've also added another quote from an interview Baldwin gave on the subject which seems to expand on his intent with the tweet. I'm a little uncomfortable with the title as you had it for a couple of reasons. The first is that is not the title of the GamerGate page here on wiki, so it should reflect that title if anything. The second is, as written it can be misconstrued as an accusation that he engaged in harassment which is a problem for a BLP without direct evidence. I've updated it to say Gamergate Controversy since that references the larger article. Squatch347 (talk) 14:09, 23 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'm not ignoring that mountain of evidence at all. I'm pointing out the fact that the wiki article on the subject is titled Controversy, not harassment campaign. If you have a sufficiently good argument as to why the title should change, you should make it there where the writers most familiar with the subject are present. We can then readdress the issue here.

The additional quote is, in fact, relevant to this subject because it is germane to exactly the question you and I have been discussing, what he saw his role in the controversy as. It isn't cherry picking unless I'm picking it out of a series of quotes and ignoring others. If you have other quotes to add, feel free to add them and we can discuss.

Squatch347 (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Please indent your comments properly. Your opinion that the quote is relevant is supported only by your own opinion. It is common practice on Wikipedia to avoid WP:CSECTIONs, for many reasons. Instead of euphemistically calling this a "controversy", we can, and should, use an extra word to indicate why it's controversial. Grayfell (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:CSECTIONS tells us to ignore WP:TITLECON or implies that we need to explain the full context of the title in the title. The section that we are editing is about Adam Baldwin's role in GamerGate. If the reader wishes to know more about why GamerGate is a controversy they can click over to the main article and read about it. You'll notice that no other major figure associated with GamerGate has the kind of title you are attempting to insert here, but ones that are in line with WP:TITLECON.

You may well have a fantastic reason for changing the title, but that needs to be done on the main article and can then flow into the linked stubs. Trying to get your particular view inserted in a branch rather than at the main seems a bit disingenuous (especially when that change has been proposed and rejected at the main though given the archive length I wouldn't be surprised if you hadn't seen that). All the reasons you have for changing the title apply to the main article as well right?

As for the two quotes referenced. I pulled both for discussion here as you seem concerned that they are cherry picked, or at least the one I added was. If we start from a shared understanding that this section is aimed at discussing Adam Baldwin's role in the situation I would argue that both quotes are relevant to, and representative of, the position the sources have taken. Quote 1 reference's Baldwin's assertion that this is a wider political correctness issue (that he thinks this is also consistent with the sources in article). Quote 2 is more specific to this issue (and more contemporary to the event than quote 1) and highlights Baldwin's view that this discussion is about journalism ethics (rightly or wrongly).

Now, you have a point that it would be nice to balance these out with some additional material, but there doesn't really seem to be a lot, quote wise, that would do so. I'm happy to entertain other quotes that you fell would make it more representative, or reasons why these two quotes aren't relevant if you have them.

Quote 1: He would later tell an interviewer that a left-wing "culture war" was imposing "political crap" on gamers.

Quote 2: In another interview Baldwin clarified; "I think any sunlight shed on journalistic ethics is positive. In any large movement there are going to be jerks, and you have to put that out as a disclaimer with anything you talk about. There’s always going to be some jerks! But the jerks aren’t the driving forces of what GamerGate is all about. GamerGate all would have been over within a day or two had the game journalists just said “You know what? You’re right. We’re going to change our policies.”"

Squatch347 (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes according to sources not according to other Wikipedia articles. This is a fundamental principle of the project. Further, we do not ignore context. The context of these sources, (here, at the Gamergate article, and elsewhere) is that this is a harassment campaign.

We are not obligated to include quotes just because you personally think they belong. The EveryJoe interview is a gushing celebrity interview from an obscure source, and nothing about this indicates it's significant in any way. The Raw Story isn't much better, and was likely banged-out by a gossip journalist in less time than it's taken us to discuss this issue. There are any number of quotes we could imclude from that Raw story, but any single choice would be arbitrary. He tweets a lot of incendiary comments, but the article fails to highlight the "crap" line as significant. You may think it explains something, but that's completely subjective.

These are both very minor primary sources. If they make a point which is encyclopedically necessary, the first goal should be to summarize the point in your own words... but it's not encyclopedically significant just because you say it is. The burden is on you to demonstrate why, according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, these quotes are relevant. It is not on me to prove the negative that they aren't.

At no point did I suggest "balancing it out" because that would be false balance. We are not obligated to include puffery or "both sides", because we as editors are not qualified to decide where the lines between sides fall. We should also not assume that these sides are equally significant. Grayfell (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the desire to add context, however we generally do that in the body of a section, not its title. If there is additional text that you feel provides context, please put it here for consideration, along with the specific text in the source you feel supports that context.

Towards the concept of adding context, the title addition you are attempting to insert would seem to indicate that you think that Baldwin did something more specific than just being involved in the controversy; that he was specifically involved in the campaign to harass Quinn. That would be a worthy context add to this sub. Can you show, specifically, what quote from the sources say Baldwin was involved in the campaign to harass Quinn or others? Because if not, inclusion of this context leaves wiki vulnerable to the same libel claims that led to the arbitration lock down on the main page.

If however, your argument is that the title text GamerGate Controversy is wrong more broadly, not related specifically to Baldwin, that is fine as well. But that argument needs to made on the main page (where it has previously been rejected) not on a sub.

As for the quotes, they add exactly what you asked to be included. Context. Context about Baldwin's specific role in GamerGate (as you can see from the main article there are multiple aspects of the events, and not everyone was necessarily involved in every aspect). That is certainly encyclopedic in that it clarifies exactly where on the spectrum of positions he claims to be. As for the article quality, no disagreement about it being a puff piece, but it is certainly as reliable to convey what Baldwin said (which is the point) as the other sources in this section, many of which are lists of essays in semi-self published venues.

Squatch347 (talk) 13:56, 29 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