Talk:Comicsgate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Possible source?

Top comics creators denounce ‘Comicsgate’ for the first time. August 29 this year. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Source on Antarctic Press Jawbreakers announcement?

From the Jawbreakers section, "On May 13, Antarctic Press announced that they were ending their relationship with Meyer, citing shock over his behavior"

I haven't been able to find a source for this. Does anyone have a link to an official announcement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.7.19.227 (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Libelous statement in wiki page?

"He encouraged his followers to publicly post and circulate names, locations, and employee information of stores that said they would not be stocking it." This is libel, regardless of 3 sources (2 "news" articles and 1 tweet). Is it beneficial to have defamatory statements on Wiki? 217.165.23.22 (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

If it is backed up by reliable sources, it is not libel. Magic9Ball (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

But it is false and not "backed up by reliable sources." 67.79.195.131 (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Saying that doesn't make it so. Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a difference between News articles and Op-eds. Roncon1 (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes and reverts.

I reverted these changes wholesale, since none of them seemed appropriate. Going over the issues I take with them:

• an indie comics movement isn't how the secondary sources we use describe the topic.
• accused to be is an expression of doubt ala WP:ALLEGED, and does not reflect how the sources use the term.
• The entire addition that starts with The movement however... is attempting WP:SYNTH ("those previous sources can't be right, here's this editor's argument about why!") Additionally, the sources used here do not pass WP:RS - boundingintocomics and bleedingfool are personal websites or blogs with no reputation, while the other source is a WP:SPS and is being used here for an unduly self-serving claim. This is particularly unacceptable because these poor sources are being used to try and respond to and cast doubt on high-quality ones.
• Likewise, the additions to the "views" section rely on a WP:SPS to make a self-serving claim, plus a wiki (which doesn't pass WP:RS, of course.) If these aspects are true and noteworthy, they should be noted in reliable secondary sources.
• The Indiegogo campaign relied entirely on WP:PRIMARY sources and was promotional in nature; there is no indication that this is noteworthy or relevant. If it is, reliable secondary sources ought to be discussing it.
• The final sentence takes a non-neutral tone "Faced the blame..."

We need to rely on high-quality sources for this, not blogs or personal websites; this isn't the place to promote non-notable indiegogo campaigns and the like. I suggest spending more time looking for reputable, mainstream sourcing. --Aquillion (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2019

Vox-Day is not Alt-right, that term is highly misused. He is a Populist-Nativist. 70.66.130.107 (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The term is used and cited in the article at Vox Day. I see no reason to remove it here without a consensus to do so. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

So, if he's smeared elsewhere on Wikipedia, it's OK to smear him here, too? Knee-jerk much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.231.167.121 (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

No, if it's properly sourced and appropriate elsewhere on Wikipedia (that is, it isn't a "smear"), that means it's appropriate here too. The subjects of WP articles don't get to dictate how they are described here. Magic9Ball (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

rename

Apparently this is an article about a similar controversy like gamergate. On this site Gamergate is titled "Gamergate controversy". Should we rename Comicsgate to Comicsgate controversy?FusionLord (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Not really, for two reasons. One, there's no scandal—real or imagined—at the heart of this. It's a campaign or movement that stands in opposition to personnel and creative decisions that its members do not like. The name of the movement was obviously chosen in order to signal alignment with the values of Gamergaters, but the latter started with something that at least was claimed to be unethical or scandalous; the Wikipedia article covers that aspect as well as the fallout, including the harassment campaign. Second, "Gamergate controversy" needs to be disambiguated from gamergate. No disambiguation is necessary here. WP Ludicer (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

"Second, "Gamergate controversy" needs to be disambiguated from gamergate. No disambiguation is necessary here." Should have been the only thing needed. I rather you not try to push your views of the group on me thank you.FusionLord (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

You were the one who said there was a "controversy". I have pushed absolutely nothing on you. WP Ludicer (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

NPOV disputed

Really feels like this article takes a stance against the proponents of the movement. It barely mentions their opinion. It doesn't hardly mention those that support it. Like any movement there is gonna be variation in what degree people take a moment. From extremism to simple stating an opinion. This article mentions none of that and insteads spends the entire article mentioning the extremism, calling it alt-right, and only mentioning the opinions of those against it. Not NPOV at all. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 23:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

So do you have reliable sources with the details of what the leaders of Comicsgate and or the collective of the movement want/need and their motives? Koncorde (talk) 01:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

No, for the simple reason of that I'm uninformed of the community and what would be considered a reliable source within it. That's why I came to the article in the first place. Because I literally just heard about the movement and I was to get a well-rounded jumping off point on getting informed. Instead, I got a one-sided article that only talks about one side of the argument. It's not very encyclopedic in that state. So my tag was more a nudge-nudge from an outsider that those with more expertise than I should take another look at it. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 01:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

We're constrained by the need to use reliable, independent sources. Pretty much the only sources that discuss Comicsgate without being critical of it are those that are themselves part of the movement, and semiprofessional at best (like maybe Bounding Into Comics). I've sincerely looked for better ones, with no luck. We can quote VanSciver, Meyer, Miller, and others to present their views (and perhaps we could do more of that, using primary sources), but there we run into problems with them stating "facts" about themselves and about the industry that (to be frank) don't match what those outside the movement understand to be true. Magic9Ball (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@TrueCRaysball: I recommend reading over this guideline if you're unfamiliar with what Wikipedia considers reliable sources: WP:RELIABLE. What I think is most important to keep in mind here is that reliable sources about a subject are ones that are independent from the subject. If they aren't independent, we run into the problem where a person might speak in a biased way about something they are involved with (sometimes in a promotional or overly positive way). Since a lot (I would even maybe say most, based off of a quick Google search) of reliable, independent sources on this topic are critical of this movement, the article will probably look that way as well. All Wikipedia can do is follow the reliable sources out there -- we aren't allowed to do original research or synthesize our own conclusions. With that said, I also recommend reading WP:WIKIVOICE, because the way in which an article is written is important for neutrality as well.

Regarding the NPOV, I'm not really sure about the article as a whole. But I personally think the quotations in the lead seem a bit strange (using quotes around the words "forced diversity" twice, without attributing who/what says that quote the first time, makes it seem like quotation marks for emphasis to me, rather than an actual quote. But this might just be my reading of it). And from a quick glance in the views section, the word "complained" seems a bit juvenile/not encyclopedic, and the statement "They have complained about stories dealing with current social issues, and the depiction of women with less sexualized figures" isn't verified by its inline citation. Just from this, I would assume the article needs a combing over to meet WP:NEUTRAL. - Whisperjanes (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

"Forced diversity" is a catchphrase of the movement, and it's in quotes to make it clear that it is their description, not Wikipedia's. (From time to time, CG supporters take the quotes off[1][2] because they want it presented as fact. The article was better-cited a year ago, with more information about the group's views in their own words, but an editor removed a lot of material and cites on the grounds that they referenced primary sources which don't quality as WP:RS. I don't see the logic of that: it seems to me that primary sources are valid for that information. Magic9Ball (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

As a general question -- Should what a group says about themselves/their beliefs be quoted in the first sentence of an article? My personal opinion is "no" (especially because I don't think I've ever seen that done before on Wikipedia). I feel like that quote should be taken out from the first sentence, since it's already mentioned and properly explained/attributed 2 sentences later.

Also, I can't speak to what the article looked like a year ago, but primary sources are not technically against reliability guidelines, as long as they're published by a reputable source (per WP:PRIMARY) and not given WP:UNDUE weight. They just require extra care. Now, if those sources were self-published and about other living people, then I can see why they were taken off (per WP:RSOPINION). But if they were included in a third-party, reliable source, it should be fine to include as long as it's properly attributed (and shown as an opinion, if it is an opinion). If the sources met those standards, they can still be added back in. - Whisperjanes (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

You could look at the old article.[3] They were mostly self-published or fringe-media sources presenting the views of Comicsgate: not objectively "reliable"... except in the sense that identify the subject's claims and POV. Magic9Ball (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have petered out, and the tag was placed with a general concern about one-sidedness without any sense that particular sources were being ignored or that a particular POV wasn't being represented; there is also no clear call for what is missing. Given that, I'm removing the tag for now, which (despite its good-faith addition in this case) is too often used as a weapon by comicsgaters to imply the article isn't neutral or "fair" to them. Grandpallama (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable given the lack of sources offered. Kaldari (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I've restored some of the primary-sourced material, to more fully describe the group's views. Magic9Ball (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Intro

Can I ask, as I don't know and seems to be unclear, who actually started Comicsgate, when did it start, who started it, how did they start it etc? It seems to actually be associated with a few key individuals - so do we have actual founder in Sciver and a.n.others? The intro at the moment feels like it is missing some of the key components of who / what / where / why / when / how which are clearly present in the rest of the article. Effectively the intro feels like a opening few paragraphs of an essay, rather than a summary of the content of the article so suspect it could be re-composed. If anyone can help summarise it would be appreciated otherwise I will dig through the RS given so far and try and re-compose the intro a bit later. Koncorde (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was something "started" as a coherent movement, nor does it have a "founder" or official leader, or a clear organization to it. I think you can probably trace its origins, and how it coalesced into a general movement (as is done on the Gamergate controversy page), but I don't think it has the sort of structure behind it that your questions assume. Grandpallama (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't much care if there is any structure, but there must be an origin, and there are named individuals who are continuing / promoting and taking actions to keep it relevant and / notable in some fashion. I.e. either ringleaders / figureheads (something done poorly on Gamergates article for that matter beyond Gjoni).

So who first said the word? We know Adam Baldwin spawned the Gamergate phrase, so there must be an origin for historical purposes of the phrase that we can summarise (or an RS already has). Then someone has clearly crowd-sourced support (again RS you would expect has identified where this is coming from). Then there must have been some RS picking it up in order to either comment on its effects (be that changes made by publishers, or harassment), and then subsequently sources picking up on reactions to whatever it was doing. At present the intro lacks anything related to this (in contrast the Gamergate article intro sums up the 5W's quite clearly, if long-winded).

Meanwhile I can see Sciver is effectively a figurehead of some sort and is named and shamed here, so it seems that there are clear individual/s who if not "officially" are at least significant enough to warrant a closer look. Scivers own article barely even mentions this situation but it looks like it's pretty much all that he has done since 2018 is push this narrative? So is he "Comicsgate"? Or are there more equally significant individuals? Koncorde (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It existed as a movement before it had a name or leaders; the Activities section identifies some of the formative incidents, around which its participants rallied. Van Sciver (note: his surname is two words) and Meyer emerged out of that as outspoken members and articulated the doctrine and talking points for it. Somebody claims to have coined the hashtag, but "___gate" is such as an obvious cliché (especially in the wake of Gamergate) that I'm not sure that matters. (There's also pre-history, such as the keep-politics-out-of-comics complaints that Marvel got in the 1960s and 1970s, and the aggrieved-fan H.E.A.T. campaign in the 1990s over DC turning Hal Jordan into a villain. But I'm not sure there's enough published RS about those connections to cover it.) Another dive into the sources would be useful, of course, but as a general rule a WP lede can be written using the body of the article as its source, so if you feel that doesn't reflect the body, a rewrite can be done without further research. Magic9Ball (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Your observation that Comicsgate is all EVS has done the past couple years is correct. There isn't much to add to his article, however, because... that's about all there is to say. Magic9Ball (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Unrelated to EVS, but just reading some historic content from 2017 on a non-RS which is comic book focused, and can see three names mooted as having "quit" Comicsgate because it wasn't anti-LGBT / Rainbow flag, pro-hetero enough. Wary of shit-posting on people because of BLP as there seems to be a lack of RS actually discussing a couple of the individuals despite their public twitter support, and then excoriation of the movement. Suffice to say their wiki bio's are all empty of any association with Comicsgate mentions also presumably due to the lack of RS discussing their exiting. Surprised to see no RS actually discussing their inclusion - instead favouring Meyer and Van Sciver to the exclusion of all others. Koncorde (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with what Magic9Ball said about the movement, which dovetails with my own understanding about the movement already having existed in a sort of proto-form, and then coalescing around outspoken figures. It doesn't have an inception point, like Gamergate does with Zoe Quinn; it's somewhat of a reactionary movement, that has cyclically arisen over the years, and I bet you could trace the beginnings of the current iteration to the pro-feminist movement that came out of the "woman in a fridge" criticisms. All said, though, we need RS that talk about the origins and opine on how it began. If we look at RS and offer up our own take, that's in the world of WP:SYNTH. And you'll never find as much about Comicsgate as you will Gamergate, given how minuscule the former industry is compared to the latter; there's some good niche journalism out there, but probably not enough (at this point) to build strong declarative statements around. Grandpallama (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It would be useful if we could identify sources looking at these various factions within CG: those who think it's just about "bad writing", those who see it as a "job discrimination" issue, and those who are all-in on the "culture war" angle. Magic9Ball (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Several sources ([4][5][6][7][8]) note that it started when In July 2017, several female Marvel staffers got together for milkshakes and a selfie, shared by editor Heather Antos, which attracted a backlash. We could probably write a history section based on those. --Aquillion (talk) 10:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

That's kind of an inception point, but like the Daily Beast article points out, it's more identifiable as the moment when the larger world simply became more aware of something that was already going on; for instance, the huge explosion over a cover of Mockingbird and the Twitter harassment of its female creator occurred in June of 2016. Comic industry news had already been reporting on this for a while. You could potentially present it as the origins of the Comicsgate hashtag, specifically, though. Grandpallama (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Deceptive editing

Various editors are insisting that the term "liberalism" remain in the article as descriptive of the those opposed by ComicsGate, and cite a source that does not contain the word "liberalism". Meanwhile, said-same editors repeatedly remove an exact quotation from Ethan Van Sciver spelling out the actual position of ComicsGate.

I can think of only one reason such editors would wish to deliberately confuse and misinform the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:444:300:3F7F:D0A7:F836:D769:86E9 (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

You seem confused. I'm the one removing the full quote, but I'm not the one taking issue with the word "liberalism". Considering the important part of the quote is being retained and attributed to Van Sciver, I'm not sure what context you feel is being lost.

You are correct that the sources provided do not contain the world "liberalism". Did you notice that the word is not in quotes in the article? This is an instance of paraphrase, and I think it's a valid synonym. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Liberalism is helpfully linked in the article, and the list in the second sentence of that article is a pretty good match for what Van Sciver is talking about. Wikipedia is not obligated to use someone's preferred terminology in describing their views. Magic9Ball (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Anybody who knows anything about ComicsGate and accuses Sciver of railing against "liberalism" is LYING OUT THEIR BUTT. And here's the evidence, from yesterday's "ComicsGate Like" Sciver chat: go to time-mark 42:33 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:444:380:3a90:6586:7645:ab1f:6015 (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Just because he claims sometimes that he's a moderate who doesn't like extremists of either side, that doesn't prove that he is. Maybe he believes that, and maybe you believe that, but beliefs aren't the same as independent facts. Magic9Ball (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

You don't have any RS for "liberalism"; that word is not in the source appended to the claim. The attempt to conflate SJWs with garden-variety "liberalism" is a disingenuous attempt to fallaciously paint ComicsGate as "far-right" even though it should be well-known by now that the likes of Vox Day aren't welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:444:380:3a90:6586:7645:ab1f:6015 (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Bounding Into Comics has characterized Vox Day and Chuck Dixon as part of the movement; that's one of our sources. They both espouse the CG principles and consider themselves part of it.[9][10] Are you suggesting we should have more information about the personality cults and in-fighting within CG? If so, we need some independent coverage of it, not just a farm of YouTube links like you dumped on the Vox Day article. (And if you're going to treat the man's word as Gospel, could you at least learn his surname? It's "Van Sciver".) Magic9Ball (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"The attempt to conflate SJWs with garden-variety "liberalism" "

You seem to assume that social justice warriors exist. This is merely a pejorative term, targeting social liberalism. Dimadick (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

There is an anecdote I like to cite when it comes to people saying that social justice warriors do not exist. "There is a difference between social justice activists and social justice warriors. Social justice advocates see disabled people having trouble ascending a flight of stairs and think, 'That's terrible. Let's go build ramps and install elevators so they don't have those problem getting up the stairs any more. Social justice warriors on the other hand see disabled people having trouble ascending a flight of stairs and think, 'That's terrible. Let's go stand next to the staircase and insult everyone whose legs work!'

The point being, if you think people like that don't exist, you're either an idiot, blind, a blind idiot, or else you're a social justice warrior who doesn't appreciate being called out for your bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:6002:80D7:749E:B4F7:5236:E1F3 (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Not my fault you're not intelligent enough to see the truth of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:6002:80D7:407A:FF79:9B65:FAF1 (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

That is without a doubt one of the dumbest analogies I have ever read, and we are all more stupid for having read it. Koncorde (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Considering how chummy (if number of granted interviews are any indication) Bounding Into Comics has been with Vox Day, I would not be surprised if they maintained as you claim. But suffice to say that Vox attempted to hijack the term with his "ComicsGate Comics" imprint, which he withdrew only two days later after Van Sciver threatened to sue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:444:380:3A90:F890:5806:EEE3:1826 (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Described by...

Regarding this edit, these sources may or may not be "critics" of Comicsgate, but using this as a defining trait is editorializing. It doesn't matter if sources are critical and therefore said Comicsgate is alt-right, or if they are critical because they are alt-right. For all we know, they are critics despite the movement being alt-right. Being "critics" is trivial distancing language which is inappropriate in this context.

Being "self-defined" is also largely irrelevant, especially since the group's membership is loosely defined and Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations. Grayfell (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Identifying the source of the description places it in context. It makes it clear that it is not generally self-descriptive, and that it is not generally made by people who are supportive of the movement. In other words, it identifies it as a criticism. That's how NPOV works: we attribute views to those who hold them. The version that you are edit-warring for leaves it unclear who considers them "alt-right". Magic9Ball (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I added a better source. The Washington Post identifies Comicsgate as an instance of the segment of the alt-right that opposes liberal politics in stereotypically male-dominated parts of popular culture, such as video games and comics. Unlike the other source, this one isn't an opinion piece and is presented as straightforward analysis of the cultural dynamics involved, so it's not really reasonable to insist that it be categorized as "criticism" unless you axiomatically reject the idea that Comicsgate is alt-right (a No True Scotsman argument which would lead to rejecting the impartiality of any source that presents any topic in a way you disagree with.) I'm not really seeing any sources of comparable quality disagreeing with the Washington Post on this, so it might be enough to remove the "described as" bit as well. --Aquillion (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Casting doubt on a term through editorializing language is non-neutral. If reliable sources dispute this description, propose them for discussion. Otherwise, using distancing language to imply skepticism is WP:EDITORIALIZING. We have not provided any reason for readers to doubt these sources beyond our own interpretation of those sources, so filler-language is not appropriate. "Views" can mean opinions, analysis, or hard fact. Wikipedia treats these things differently. Reliable sources do not treat this as a subjective opinion. If sources describe something in factual terms, so should the article. Multiple reliable sources have said that this loosely affiliated movement as part of the alt-right. That's the context readers expect, not the opinion of some random Wikipedia editor on where those sources are coming from.

Your statement that this must be identified as a criticism is tautological. Is it critical because critics say it? Or is it unflattering because it's critical? Does this actually matter? No, not really. Sources do not have to be supportive of the movement to make observations about that movement. Sources decide context, not editors. This is one reason we strongly prefer independent sources, and we attempt to summarize those source neutrally, without adding our own editorializing language. Grayfell (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Refbombing is probably unavoidable. The Vulture source also supports this connection. Screen Rant is mixed as a RS, but several stories from it specifically say the alt-right is why Comicsgate and affiliated creators are controversial, and in this context it seems usable. Grayfell (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Just saying "described as" without attribution is a violation of WP:WEASEL because it invites the reader to ask "by whom"? Also, your comments seem to be applying the wrong definition of Critic. Critics are people who give their opinion on things, hence why some films are "praised by critics". You might associate it (and Criticism) with negativity, but the word itself isn't inherently negative. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Possibly, but the Washington Post source doesn't fit that definition of critic either; it's news reporting, not an opinion piece, so if you object to attributing what they say all we can do is report it as fact. Also, I note that your edit summary seems to assume the "critical of" interpretation (The fact that they're critics is obvious because what non-critic would call it a harassment campaign?); that also shares the No True Scotsman fallacy I mentioned above, in the sense that - harassment campaigns are a real thing, and when news sources describe something that way it is inappropriate to say "well, I disagree, so they're just criticizing it rather than reporting the objective facts." It is not criticism to call a spade a spade; and it is editorializing on our part to frame objective reporting as "criticism" simply because we disagree. If you think that those sources are seriously contested - that is to say, not necessarily objective - or that their interpretations are in doubt, you should produce comparable sources disagreeing with them. Otherwise we should just go with what they say (ie. report the truth as they report it rather than using WP:WEASEL wording to cast doubt on it by making it look like a mere opinion.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this edit captures what I was going for, so thanks for that copyedit.

I can't tell if you're assuming my position or not, but to clarify I do think it's a harassment campaign. However, I believe that's a loaded and subjective label that participants would object to. If they don't describe themselves that way, it's inappropriate to apply that label in Wikipedia's voice. An accurate article will provide enough objective facts for the readers to decide if WaPo is right to call them alt-right. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure where this assumption comes from, but we are not obligated to favor a group's self description over reliable sources. A harassment campaign may or may not use a certain word to describe themselves. Reliable sources do use that word. There is no conflict here. We have to stick to sources, same as always. Grayfell (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia describing a harassment campaign as a harassment campaign, so long as it's supported by the sources. Kaldari (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

If the group contests the label, then it's a controversial label and should be attributed to the people applying it. See any of the discussions surrounding descriptions of conspiracy theorists, or the discussions about whether events are "protests" or "riots". Argento Surfer (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I have been involved with many of those discussions on talk pages. My comment here is based on those past discussions. Per WP:FRINGE, I have supported the position that we should use plain language to describe conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories. The article for Pizzagate, for example, is "Pizzagate conspiracy theory". It is not describe by critics as a conspiracy theory. The same logic applies here. As far as I know, the opposition of Comisgaters to being called "alt-right" is hypothetical. For what it's worth, Beale has embraced the label, but this doesn't really matter because he's not a reliable source. Speculating on whether or not they, as a nebulous movement, apply the label to themselves is a distraction. If you suspect that this nebulous movement objects to other people applying it, that's also a distraction. It only matters to the extent it is discussed by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Having slept on it, you're right. I have no concern with Wikipedia's voice mirroring sources as long as it's direct, but if we say it's "described as something", we should say who's describing it. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, "described as" was not ideal. Aquillion's edits are an improvement. Grayfell (talk) 07:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Weak Citations

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, so I could be wrong, but some of these citations strike me as very weak. One example is the claim that Comicsgate is alt-right, supported by a Miami Herald opinion piece. Are opinion articles traditionally considered acceptable for citations? This seems like a terrible idea, since Encyclopedias should be neutral in their treatment and opinion is by definition non-neutral. An easy fix would be to say something like "Some believe the movement is connected to the alt-right...".

The treatment also feels very one-sided. I came to learn about the movement but most of the information on the page is about how its opponents have reacted to it. What do we think about adding more stuff from people involved like Meyer? I went and watched a couple of his videos since I felt like this article might be misrepresenting Comicsgate and I noticed that he specifically asks viewers not to contact the comics creators he discusses. Could we work in stuff like that anywhere?

Again, I'm new to Wikipedia so let me know if I'm just missing something about how things work around here.

Thanks!

DrPeepus (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

One example is the claim that Comicsgate is alt-right, supported by a Miami Herald opinion piece. It is also supported by an article in the Washington Post, which is not an opinion piece. That said, it's easy enough to find academic sources for this fact, so I replaced the Miami Herald with a few of those. And more broadly, our coverage reflects what reliable sources say; even if people disagree with their conclusions, we have to rely on them - even if you dislike what eg. the Washington Post or the Guardian says, they have an extensive reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which makes them reliable for statements of fact. Personal videos from people like Meyer are not reliable sources, since they can simply claim whatever they desire, perform no fact-checking, and have no reputation for accuracy. What you're suggesting is known as WP:FALSEBALANCE - "balancing" high-quality mainstream sources with relatively WP:FRINGE or low-quality ones is not genuine balance and results in less accurate articles. --Aquillion (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

We don't preface every statement with "some people believe" because that would make Wikipedia unreadable. Citations cover that, by identifying the sources (or a sample of them) for the information we provide. Wikipedia is based on consensus, so when something is widely stated, intuitively clear, and refuted only by those who have a vested interest in doing so... we tend to accept it. I believe we could do a better job of reporting the beliefs of the Comicsgate crowd by citing what its leaders have written, but understand: we aren't under any obligation to set our critical thinking aside and take what they say at face value. Meyer's comments to his followers not to harass people whom he is singling out to blame for horrible things are a classic example of that. Magic9Ball (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for prompt replies. I agree that using Meyer's claims as sources is bad practice as support for those claims, but something like "Meyer has told his viewers not to contact or harass the subjects of his videos, but this has done little to curb the behavior" is a statement of fact that doesn't put any judgment on Meyer's real intentions. Citing his actual statements surely can't be seen as an endorsement of the statements, or even an endorsement of the veracity of the statements. DrPeepus (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Provide reliable, secondary sources that make such statements, and then their inclusion can be considered. Grandpallama (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Comicsgate is not inherently against diversity.

Comicsgate is not averse to diversity in comics. I think its important to make the distinction that its averse to corporately mandated diversity in comics. 2601:448:4200:BF10:9829:BD5E:178B:AF14 (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -ink&fables «talk» 07:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

It may not be presented specifically enough, but it's a valid criticism of the article. In the process of purging primary sources and statements based on them, the article no longer accurately describes the group's stated views. I'll attempt a correction. Magic9Ball (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. Our obligation is to cover them as reliable sources do; all the academic sources I could find flatly state that they oppose diversity in comics. We cannot cite people's own statements for things that are unduly self-serving; and, more generally, when there are differing accounts of what a group or organization actually wants, we go for the highest-quality academic sources, which are essentially unanimous in their description. This is especially true for Comicsgate / Gamergate, where many sources have specifically highlighted the fact that the group's self-description of its goals are (for tactical reasons) intentionally misleading and that this made much of the early coverage of them confusing before higher-quality sources covered it in more depth. We have no obligation to reflect their branding efforts unless high-quality sources have treated it seriously; and (partially because the media was more aware of the situation after Gamergate) that isn't the case here, especially with the highest-quality sources - academic sources have almost entirely ignored the self-descriptions you're referencing in favor of more rigorous analysis. --Aquillion (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that actively suppressing information about what the group states is appropriate. All it does is undermine the credibility of the article. Magic9Ball (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing is being actively suppressed; we cover what the highest-quality sources say about the topic, with weight distributing according to their credibility and focus. Your preferred version would actively suppress what those sources say and instead put, in the first sentence of the article, a statement that is weakly-sourced and which seems to reflect nothing more than an occasional catchphrase a few people have tried to push on Twitter. It is not our place as an encyclopedia to pluck up catchphrases from Twitter, no matter how much you like them or feel the people who pushed them represent the true face of the topic. Our job is to look for what the very best sources have to say and to frame our discussion based on that. If you can find better sources, we could possibly mention it somewhere further down the article with proper attribution, but the idea that we could weight a blog and Screenrant above the Journal of Graphic Novels and Comics or Critical Studies in Media Communication is silly; if you think the random catchphrase you stumbled across is genuinely important to understanding the subject, you ought to write to those journals and suggest a correction, or find comparable sources emphasizing its importance the way you want it to be emphasized. I searched myself and simply did not find them - it is just not as big an aspect of the topic as you think it is, certainly not something that could be remotely justified for the first sentence of the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 07:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Forced diversity is not a "random catchphrase [I] stumbled across"; it is quoted by source after source [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] to explain to their readers what CG is. Perhaps your "research" has been inadequate. Scholarly articles are not the only sources we have to draw from, which is good because they have limitations. On niche subjects they're few and far between. (I have friends in comics academia, and I think they'd be amused by any idolatry of the field's limited literature.) They're written for an audience already familiar with the topic, to focus on a specific question, and therefore do little introductory explanation of the sort that Wikipedia is here for. (I'm not going to write to a grad student and complain that they didn't write a good "What is Comicsgate?" article, because I understand that isn't what they were aiming to do.) I'm not trying to suppress such articles (have I deleted or deprecated any?), I'm just trying to supplement them with additional sources that provide a more complete and clear picture. Magic9Ball (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

This question about whether or not Comicsgate sources can be used for the purpose of self-description (i.e., "supporters of Comicsgate claim x") is something we've already discussed on this talkpage. I see Aquillion's interpretation of WP:SELFSOURCE reasonable, but I'm not convinced that using those sources to illustrate what the claim about Comicsgate is, after which we provide plenty of RS to describe what everyone else says Comicsgate is, violates the "self-serving" clause of SELFSOURCE. Since a large chunk of what to include revolves around whether or not those sources can be used in even a limited fashion, and since it looks to me like reasonable arguments are being made on both sides, I'd suggest it makes sense to move to WP:3O or DRN to get some outside input on the interpretation of SELFSOURCE in this usage. Grandpallama (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Publishing

Hi guys, hundreds of comics are/being published by this movement's members and they grossed millions of dollars. I believe it should be reported in the article for giving a full picture. Without it, it gives the sense that there isn't much going on with this movement.

I guess it would be hard to correctly list comicsgate creators, it would take a lot of digging around at richard meyers and ethan van sciver's channels and social media. While not all, most of the campaings in the website https://indiecron.com/ identify themselves or identified themselves in the past as comicsgate. It may be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.183.122.11 (talk • contribs)

Have any independent sources taken note of the members publishing or grossing millions of dollars? Schazjmd (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Renaming this article as "Criticism of Comicsgate"

I feel as if this article is not written from a neutral POV.

I myself was trying to figure out what exactly "Comicsgate" is exactly. I googled "what is comics gate" and got this article as the first hit. I read it, and was very confused. As I was trying to figure out what Comicsgate actually is. Meaning, why was it created. What is the purpose of its existence. What have they've done so far to further that purpose. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find this information. Instead I was met with an article of what seemed like Comicsgate detractors, writing about what they believe Comcisgate is, rather than what the actual proponents of comicsgate declare themselves as. Now a week later after doing my fair share of research I've returned to express my desire to see the current article split into two separate wikipedia pages.

I would recommend condensing this article to be very, very small. A section that details the history of comicsgate. A summary when it was created, why it was created, and how its evolved overtime. This section should declare what comcisgaters themselves define their movement as, and what they hope to achieve. Then a second section that is a timeline of events, detailing how the comocsgate movement has evolved over time - this can include the various major criticisms that have been placed upon the movement, and how the comics gaters respond to it.

Then there should finally be a small section called "Critisicm of Comicsgate" - this should include a brief paragraph summarizing the various critiques of the movement. Then, there should be a link to a separate wikipedia article called "Criticism of Comicsgate" which can basically just be the current article. This entire article can literally be that separate article with just a few tweeks.

All three sections should be fairly brief, and to the point. It most definitely should be written in a neutral POV. The second "criticisms of comicsgate" article can be as long as y'all like. Go ham. What do you all think?

PopCultureSuperHero (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

"I read it, and was very confused. As I was trying to figure out what Comicsgate actually is." What exactly are you unclear on? The "Views" section and the lead tell you exactly what it is. WP Ludicer (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

What you're describing sounds a lot like a WP:POVFORK - segregating material critical of the movement into a separate article - which isn't how Wikipedia handles NPOV. Magic9Ball (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Attn Magic9Ball - I'm not suggesting that this article be scrubbed of critical material at all. In the "timeline" portion of the article, all the negative publicity and various incidents would be documented. It would have to be, as anything notable having to do with the term "comicsgate" would need to be included. Then of course, in the "criticism of comicsate" section there can be a decent sized paragraph summing up the various criticisms relating to misogyny, or alt-right associations or whatever. What I'm suggesting is that there also be a separate article that goes into greater depth on the criticisms of comisgate, as the "movements" criticisms seem more notable than it's actual goals or mission statements - as is clearly evident from both of those things being currently missing from the article.

Basically, the current article is nothing but criticism of the movement. There doesn't seem to be any mention of what comicsgate actually is (as defined by the people who created it), or a timeline of events that can even be followed to provide context to substantiate the claims in the article itself. Something as simple as...

"on this date comisgate was founded" - "on this date comisgate made these racists remarks" - "on this date this notable person denounced comicsgate" - "on this date in response to the criticism from this event comisgate leaders did this stuff" - "this led to this notable person doing this"

...that would would help a whole bunch. But, regardless of whether or not we as wikipedia editors actually believe comcisgate leaders, it is still our duty as neutral documentarians to create a section explaining what ComicsGate actually is according to its creators. Which to answer WP Ludicer is what I was confused about. Me reading this article w/o any prior knowledge of what comicsgate is, leads me to believe that comicsgaters are openly alt-right racist misogynists that hate diversity.

Obviously, I was skeptical of anybody openly calling themselves these labels, or associating with a movement that openly preaches such things. When I deep dived into it, I found out that the proponents of comicsgater claim they have no political affiliation, and are actually for diversity in comics - they just don't like the current methods involved, which they dubbed "force diversity." They have there own definition of there movement is, why it was created, what they would like to see changed, why they would like to see it changed, and how they would like to see it changed. This all sounded much more reasonable to me - even though I still don't quite agree with it (because I can clearly see that this is something that legitimate bigots have gotten behind as a way to mask their hatred), I can understand why people would support such a movement if they believe its mission statements to be earnest.

Its like I create a new brand of sparkling health juice meant to improve concentration and stamina, but then everyone criticises me and claims all I did was create a soda at worst or energy drink at best. The wikipedia article about that product would still list it as a "health juice created to improve concentration & stamina", the article would call it a soda or energy drink because that's not what it actually is labeled as (even if that's what it actually is) - thats what the "criticism, and timeline" portions of the article would be for.

Basically even tho Comicsgate might really be a cavity causing soda masquerading as a health conscious fruit juice - until Comicsgate actually comes out and openly states that they are a soda, then we as neutral documentarians can't call it as such. In this regards statements like "It is part of the alt-right movement" & "members of the movement object to diversification of comics" are simply NOT true, if only because it goes against what the group says about itself. In reality, such statements are just us calling the juice a soda - of course, with a "criticism" section added such statements would indeed meet the criteria. PopCultureSuperHero (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

You do realize that what you're describing isn't NPOV, but rather allowing the statements of Comicsgaters to dictate the article's point of view, don't you? "Comicsgate" is a fringe group, with all of the attendant caveats that normally apply to fringe opinions on Wikipedia. The article can (and should) say what they say about themselves, but let's be real, here: "forced diversity" is a loaded phrase. It's intended to push a particular agenda while obfuscating the intent, which is very obviously to maintain the status quo. Conveniently for Comicsgaters, it actually does take conscious effort to affect the inertia of a traditionally cisgender, heterosexual, white male-dominated industry (or any entrenched culture), so any effort to introduce diversity can be described as "forced", and usually is. Taking a specific example from the article, they object to Marvel's All New, All Different lineup as "forcing" characters into the role of taking up the mantles of white male heroes, but the only part of that idea that's remotely "new" is the sex, gender identity, race, etc. of the characters involved. Comic book heroes are frequently (temporarily) killed off or incapacitated and their role goes to another character with a close relationship to the hero or their story. There are no similar complaints about those characters being "forced" into the roles, or an insistence that those characters must remain wholly separate, with their own identity and powers, etc. Most damning is the fact that the primary figures involved here aren't striking out on their own to show how diversity should be done; they're just making the comics they want other artists to make for them.

Of course, I freely admit that's all original research – I'm not suggesting putting it in the article – but when we're writing from a neutral perspective, we're not expected to turn off our ability to think critically and recognize when a person or group is employing deceptive practices (or perhaps that they're legitimately deluded). We can't say that in the article without attributing it to a reliable source, but we can take it into consideration when we're deciding what kind of weight is due to particular viewpoints, especially those on the fringes—and we certainly should refrain from using terminology employed by those who espouse those viewpoints as if it is perfectly uncontroversial and neutral to do so. WP Ludicer (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The timeline of events (to the extent that we can document it) is in the Activities section. There's no statement of the date it was founded, because it isn't an organization of that kind.

It is a valid criticism that the article does a poor job of explaining what Comicsgate members perceive/present themselves as. I've tried to improve that, but have received resistance from editors who insist that we are not allowed to directly quote statements from leaders of the movement for that purpose, and interpretation of WP policy I believe to be erroneous. (See the "Deletion of sources" discussion above.) Magic9Ball (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

relationship to gamergate

Gamergate isn't similar to the ComicsGate. while this page gets a gist of ComicsGate approximately correct; Gamergate was the evidenced leaking, as well as industry protest against game developers colluding with game journalist to shape public opinion of content. sometimes refered to as a "pay for play" or "access journalism" scheme.

ComicsGate protests the repurposing of existing content to attract demographics who would otherwise not read comics. 2601:98A:104:A10:FDA5:15B5:479C:436F (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

That is neither an accurate description of the Gamergate controversy nor of Comicsgate; instead, those are the false narratives that are pushed by supporters which fail to acknowledge the reality of what both movements are actually promoting (or protesting). Grandpallama (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, that response isn't condescending at all. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It was civil, which is more than what apologist claims about harassment campaigns deserve. Grandpallama (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It ignored the IP's point, which was that the article says The name is derived from Gamergate, a similar movement related to video games. There are two sources for this claim. The Global News article mentions Gamergate under the header Is this at all affiliated with Gamergate?, then goes on to say the two movements are only "kind of" connected. The Inverse article calls Gamergate the ancestor of Comicsgate, but highlights how disorganized and unclear the latter is in comparison, and how very few members of one are in the other. Neither supports the claim about the name's derivation. Both talk about how dissimilar they are.

But never mind me or the IP. Clearly, this article is FA quality and any suggestions at improvement must be the work of apologists for the subject. Sorry to have wasted your time. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see where the IP mentions anything to do with the naming of the movement? Koncorde (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The title of the section is "relationship to gamergate". The article only mentions Gamergate once, which I quoted above. Unless you think the IP is just here spouting off, what else would that be referring to? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

what else would that be referring to? Since the IP makes a point of incorrectly summarizing both movements, I don't think we have to surmise what they're referring to; they told us that they think the two things are disconnected based upon fallacious descriptions of both things. That's not a genuine suggestion for article improvement, but POV-pushing. It's more odd that you have concluded this is a question about the name origination, which wasn't mentioned at all by the IP, and then decided to behave combatively toward other editors who actually noted what the IP actually discussed. Grandpallama (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

And you think their comment has nothing at all to do with what the article says about Gamergate? It's one sentence, which connects it to Comicsgate through the similar name and says it is a similar movement. The sources provided don't support either claim and actually support what the IP says - that the two movements have different motives and share few similarities. Now, would you care to comment on this content concern, instead of ducking it with more condescending remarks? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

And you think their comment has nothing at all to do with what the article says about Gamergate? Why would I assume the IP is talking about something they didn't talk about, while ignoring what they did talk about? The connections between the two movements exist because they are similar, and a supposed lack of similarity is the only thing the IP discussed. If you want to raise a discussion about the origin of the name (the Inverse article calls Gamergate the ancestor of Comicsgate and says the origins of Comicsgate are siphoned from the 2014 Gamergate movement, which support our text), you can do so, but that's not what the IP did. I didn't duck anything, and it's not condescending to directly address what the IP actually said (instead of trying to interpret what they said). Grandpallama (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Is it really that big of a stretch to think the IP was using the Article's talk page to discuss what the article says? C'mon. That's disingenuous at best, and obtuse at worst. The Inverse article says the origins of Comicsgate are hazy and difficult to pinpoint. It then spends the bulk of its words on recapping the history of the movement without mention of Gamergate, or any members of Gamergate, until the very end when it contrasts the movements instead of calling them similar. There is no mention in either source of where the name "Comicsgate" started, let alone crediting Gamergate with its derivation. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I see no mention of the name being derived from Gamergate in their comments. I can see there is an argument that the two movements are dissimilar - but nothing to do with the name. Koncorde (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

What about in our article? Do you see it in our article? Argento Surfer (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I would call putting words in the IP's mouth disingenuous and doubling down when called on it obtuse; as I said, the IP didn't discuss this, but you can start a discussion about that topic, which you have done, while insulting other editors. The full quotation from Inverse is Because the hazy origins of Comicsgate are siphoned from the 2014 Gamergate movement and “alt-right” white nationalists, it is difficult to pinpoint a specific origin. That statement makes clear that Comicsgate comes from Gamergate; the only thing that is hazy is pinpointing a specific moment of origin for Comicsgate, the way that Gamergate is traced to the Zoe Quinn incident. It clearly states that Comicsgate came from Gamergate (the hazy origins of Comicsgate are siphoned from the 2014 Gamergate movement) and when it addresses the origin of the term Comicsgate explictly names Gamergate the ancestor of Comicsgate. As far as the names go, they are both obviously "-gate" scandals that have a name origin going back to Watergate. But our source twice explicitly identifies Comicsgate as an outgrowth of Gamergate. The article also doesn't end by contrasting the movements--it says that the ultimate demands of Comicsgate are unclear in comparison to Gamergate, but does not in any way say the two movements are dissimilar; in fact, the final paragraph says they are the same (and throws in the Sad Puppies, to boot). Grandpallama (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to paraphrase the paragraph you say isn't contrasting CGate and GGate. "There wasn't an inciting incident for CGate, unlike GGate. CGate wants A. GGate wants B." How is that not a contrast? Please quote this final paragraph [saying] they are the same. The last paragraph of the Inverse article says "We’ve seen this before. ... It’s little more than the latest irate gasp of fading white hegemony in geek culture." The end of the Global News article is a quote from Kernzer saying people should praise books they like instead of complaining about books they don't like. Nothing about similarities. Nothing about Gamergate at all, in fact. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Do I see that our article says Comicsgates name is derived from Gamergate? Yes. Can you show me where the IP says anything to do with the name? Koncorde (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The IP didn't, they were discussing the second half of the sentence. I brought up the name derivation from the first half because I found it unsupported when reviewing the sources. Can we talk about the content now? Argento Surfer (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Yet you saw fit to berate me for not addressing the thing you're now admitting the IP didn't bring up. Grandpallama (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The last paragraph, which you paraphrased, contains the Gamergate reference in the part you elided: We’ve seen this before. It happened with video games and science-fiction literature. It's not contrasting the movements, but the inciting incidents of the movements, while explicitly drawing connections between Gamergate, Comicsgate, and Sad Puppies; your argument that the article suggests they don't have similarities because they didn't begin the same way is like saying there are no similarities between WW1 and WW2 because the second one didn't kick off with the assassination of an archduke. None of the quotations you are pulling out of the article refute the repeated claims throughout the article that Comicsgate is a direct product of Gamergate. Grandpallama (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I see what you're talking about now. I was thrown off by the reference to Sad Puppies, a link I didn't follow and confused with Sick Puppies. I was looking for song lyrics, and thought maybe we were looking at different sources. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

What a nicer world this would be if the Sad Puppies were only just some garage band! :) Grandpallama (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)