Talk:Comicsgate

Neutral POV Lacking

The article takes the tone of deconstruction and opposition. For example, for each view ascribed to Comicsgate, there is an attempt to invalidate that view. In addition, some comments cite references to editorials expressing negative opinions of Comicsgate as if they were citing factual evidence. For instance, in regards to the sentence "It is part of the alt-right movement,[6][7][8][9] and has been described by commentators as a harassment campaign", the references indicated ascribe alt-right as a label of contempt; they do not serve as sources of factual evidence that Comicsgate is inherently linked to the alt-right would. Let's consider that a more neutral tone would state that "It is described by commentators as part of the al-right movement and as a harassment campaign". 2601:C0:8100:16:3422:F8B7:F4A0:A11 (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep, and all of the citations are opinion pieces and not real sources. 24.241.144.194 (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

They actually moved the Gamergate article to "Gamergate (harassment campaign)" so you'll have no luck with that. Equinox ◑ 13:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

All the sourced artices are from reputable news sources such as the washington post and the New york times. It's not the article's fault that your "movement" has nazis as its spokespeople. Maybe create your own far right Wikipedia if you don't like it. Comisgate has a history with the alt right movement and many reported incidents of sending death threats to comic creators and vandalism. Nothing in here is false. 108.28.107.49 (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Anti-Comicgate propaganda

This entire article brings up talking points which are misleading or completely fabricated in order to tarnish the reputation of a movement for the sole purpose of catering to a far left-wing ideological bias of it.

It brings up all the negative aspects, and none of the pro or good aspects like the crowd funding and indie startup projects that have been made possible by it.

It also ignores the fact there are minority artists and creators within comicsgate to include: blacks, women, LGBTQ and other marginalized peoples. They actively support and contribute to the movement.

The movement is also not 'alt-right' or 'bigoted' in nature, it was always about apolitical concepts against the radical progressivism that has been degrading the quality of comics.

Many of the arguments about women or sexuality in comics were subjective bias based on the unrealistic standard given for both men and women in comics. These arguments had many anti-sexualization advocates body shaming other women or telling them they to be ashamed of their bodies and even attacked female artists who liked to draw provocative women, it was an affront to artistic autonomy and creativity.

No one in the movement who actually supports it, has racist ideologies or supports hate speech whatsoever, the misconception comes when you have comic companies retcon and make radically extreme changes to characters for nothing short of a diversity push, they often even make stereotypical depictions of minorities in order to prove how they are being 'supportive,' this flies in the face of the concept of diversity, when they remove diversity of thought and make their comics about Left-wing talking points or political issues, dedicating entire pages of a comic to bring up some inane concept, using language that offends minority communities; in example the promotion of the term 'latinx' or making a comic which features a well-known black character acting as a walking stereotype (What if... Miles Morales was Thor; recently).

They take straight characters with no history of LGBTQ establishment and then just flip switches on them ignoring their history or autonomy vs attempting to make real efforts to establish new characters or make productive story lines; often making characters who are walking gay stereotypes, self inserts or just so horrifically bad, that they come of as parodies (examples include Marvels attempt at Safe-Space and Snowflake; creating a character like Kamala Khan who is a lesbian and a muslim; retconning Halo as a non-binary, muslim, pansexual corpse; Starfire's Daughter in I am not Starfire; Jean literally mind-reading Bobby(Ice Man) into homosexuality; making Tim Drake bi-sexual; completely mutilating characters like Aqualad).

There is a point where fans who love these characters and grew up on them, feel they need to step in and their voices are being ignored. They are being given labels like: bigot, homophobe, sexist or racist; this is utter nonsense. A strategy being used to conflate valid criticism with social agendism. Activism; blaming them(fans) for not liking the work vs assuming responsibility for their(the company's) poor quality products.

Comicsgate was created to give artists, writers, fans and new audiences an alternative option.

The current state of mainstream comics is less than satisfactory, readers are switching over to alternative media in droves (manga gaining much greater following and being the greatest factor in the slump in the market) there is also a point where the 2 major companies aren't even focusing on comics and have instead become 'media' companies.

There's so much animosity in the industry, that you have people (probably the same ones who moderated this page) defending these companies, to the extent they spread misinformation and propaganda about anything that isn't embracing them.

It is a hateful ideology as much as any other.

So to put it bluntly, this article is not being written in an apolitical objective manner, it is being written to cater to left-wing talking points. It is biased. Which means Wikipedia is biased for allowing someone to write it in such a fashion. Muttemor (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Your reliable sources for all that, and refutation of the sources used in the artice, are ...? Otherwise, this is just forum posting. Acroterion (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Non of this is accurate

Comics gate isn't against any thing there not racist or sexist or anti LGBT and they are far from alt right they just want for story's not agenda driving narrative and garbage lazy writing and art — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.72.96.158 (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Comicsgate stealth distro unmasked

From https://www.comicsbeat.com/distribution-round-up-dstlry-icbca/ "UPDATE ... We regret to inform you that ICBCA is ComicsGate-affiliated. A number of people on Twitter this morning, in response to ICv2’s story, have noted that ICBCA co-founder Phil Avelli has as recently as last week been releasing his comics through Vox Day‘s publisher Arkhaven: ..." 207.81.183.250 (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Descriptor for Vox Day

I have had my edit reverted without a good reason (in my opinion) now twice, so let me elaborate my reasoning for my edit:

Currently the article states "Alt-right activist Vox Day wrote and published the series Alt-Hero".

Calling Vox Day an "alt-right activist" in this manner is a statement of fact. The actual article on Vox Day states that "he has been described" as such (which I am not arguing against).

People can read all about Vox Day in the respective article and make up their minds. This particular article is about Comicsgate. Pulling the "alt-right" opinion out of the Vox Day article and turning it into a fact in the process is inappropriate, reductive, and will always be two steps behind the parent article.

The lowest common denominator (as per the Vox Day article) seems to be that he "is an American activist and writer." (statement of fact).

As for the source (https://boingboing.net/2018/09/04/alt-right-publisher-founds-com.html), it is from a group blog (Wikipedia:BLOGS) and clearly an opinion piece. A single source of this nature is insufficient to make a factual claim about a person which is dedicated to a different topic.

Please comment @Grandpallama and @Acroterion

Arcadia Darell (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Your reference to Day's article ignores the subsequent sentence in the lede, which goes on to describe Day as a lot more than a "writer and activist." You appear to be trying to water down a peripheral article. There are other sources available for the referenced characterization. Acroterion (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The subsequent sentence states what others have described him as, not what he is. (WP:WIKIVOICE applies).

I can only assume that the specific wording in the article about Vox Day is the result of editor consensus and that there is a good reason why these things are stated as opinion and not fact.

The current wording in the article about Comicsgate bypasses and overrules that editor consensus. It makes a statement of fact and ties it to a single questionable source (as opposed to the 70+ sources in the Vox Day article).

Do you have reason to doubt the consensus reached in the other article and can you provide an argument for why it should be permissible to override said consensus with a single source? Arcadia Darell (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:CONLOCAL means that whatever discussions reached at that article aren't applicable here; additionally, our sourcing will be somewhat different in that we ought to focus, here, on sources that discuss him in the context of Comicsgate specifically. Either way, WP:NPOV says that we must Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice... We can't just decide ourselves that certain sources are mere descriptions rather than fact. That said, we could certainly use more or better sources here. [1], from a peer-reviewed academic journal, describes him as fascist Theodore Beale (who goes by the pseudonym Vox Day). --Aquillion (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Aquillion is a champion of, and expert on, high-quality sourcing, and I agree with everything they said here about how the article could always use better sources. That said, I would also point out that there is no real question or controversy about whether or not Day is on the extreme right; rather, there is quibbling in sources about alt-right vs. far right vs. right-wing vs. fascist vs. neo-Nazi vs. fringe right vs. any other number of terms that still agree he is an example of an ideological extremist. Disagreement about exactly which term to use is not grounds to remove all of them and pretend he isn't where he is on the spectrum. Disagreements over whether to term Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a "progressive" or "far left" would hardly be grounds for any reasonable person to pretend we don't acknowledge she's a political liberal. Grandpallama (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Aquillion is correct. But here I see the local sourcing being used s a pretext to water down content in support of a POV. Comicsgate and related articles are perennial targets for partisanship, and changes need consensus, not just edit summary objections and removal of references instead of improvement of references. Acroterion (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)