Talk:Comicsgate/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wording changes for clarity

Hello! I just learned that any changes to a page that relates to a sociopolitical issue requires clear explanation and consensus, so I’m posting with that goal. I want to make two small changes to the text. I’m going to try to be as specific as possible with my reasoning, so please bear with me… I’m probably going to be wordy.

First, I’d like to change “Comicsgate is a campaign in opposition to diversity and progressivism in…” to something like “Comicsgate is a campaign in opposition to what its proponents believe is extreme progressivism in…” The reason is that the current wording appears to be an inaccurate description of the issue. I’m sure the original writer didn’t intend that; it’s purely a semantic issue. To say that those people (one of whom I am not, just to get that out there: my only interest is in maintaining objectivity, regardless of the topic) are opposed to diversity itself implies that it’s the use of characters of various backgrounds and identities to which they object, and as far as I can tell, that isn’t the case. Their objection - though since it’s not an organized group but a loose collection of people that runs the gamut from normal humans to appalling trolls it’s hard to pin down a single message - seems to be to what they see as an effort by comics publishers to disproportionately represent various groups in an effort to sell books. I want it to be very clear with the potential new wording, though, that their mission itself is one of opinion, which is why I think a phrase like “what they believe to be” or “what they perceive as” is important to inject. I’ve tried to compose a sentence that makes it clear that no position on the matter is being taken by the article.

Second, I’d like to change “it is part of the alt-right movement” to something like “some consider it part of the alt-right movement.” I was curious about this myself, but when I read through the four sources cited as evidence of that point, I was really confused to find that none of them actually establish it. Only one of the sources even mentions Comicsgate, and it describes it as alt-right without explanation; it just accepts the idea as a given. Since there’s no governing body that officially designates these movements as right or left, it seems like the only way for one to objectively be classified would be through self-identification. I haven’t been able to find anything from them that amounts to, “We’re alt-right,” and generally those people who are aren’t shy about it. Of course, I may just be missing it! But if we can’t find a source that definitively establishes it, then I think a qualifier like “may be alt-right” is the best way to communicate that its ideals appear to align with those of many alt-right folks, without explicitly identifying it as such.

Okay, I think I’ve probably been way too talkative, but I hope my meaning is clear. Thanks! Loomborn (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

ETA: Hmm, I’ve just seen another post on this topic higher up the list, and where it addresses those same citations, the author has apparently found two explicit mentions of Comicsgate in them that I didn’t see. Either that, or the citations have changed since then. I’m going to go back and look now. Loomborn (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

ETA again: Ahhh, I see, I was only able to access the abstracts for those two. It appears I would have to pay the site to read the full articles. I guess it’s moot, though, since the previous poster appears to have accessed them and explained their usage pretty clearly. Loomborn (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Objective is in accordance with what high quality reliable sources say. What you're proposing is WP:FALSEBALANCE. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Specious/Spurious citations in the lede

The assertion that Comicsgate is "part of the alt-right movement is not supported by the citations given, specifically 6,7,8, and 9.

6 says only this about Comicsgate: "the politics of superhero comics, which is currently focussed(sic) on issues of representation and diversity, something that is in turn being contested by reactionary forces collected under the name ‘Comicsgate’" and does not mention the alt-right.

7 says this: "The alt-right label is applied to a variety of causes, from men’s rights activists to neo-Nazis to Internet pranksters. One segment of the alt-right opposes liberal politics in stereotypically male-dominated parts of popular culture, such as video games and comics. The best-known instances are Gamergate and Comicsgate." This is not a positive assertion; it is an observation that others have sometimes labeled Comicsgate as alt-right, with no evidence to demonstrate that; and further, the given definition is very far indeed from the definition on Wikipedia, making this source unverifiable and in this specific instance, unreliable.

8 There is no mention of Comicsgate whatsoever.

9 again makes a broad and unsupported assertion that Comicsgate is part of the alt-right (graf 19), but offers no evidence (their citation is to a paper from 2015 that makes no mention of Comicsgate (Chess, Shaw, 2015)), and goes on to beg the question for the rest of the article on the subject, meaning this, too, is unverifiable and unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:8201:b000:c92d:c207:6d78:89b5 (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Alt Right

The sources used to label this movement a part of the "alt right" are inadequate and not in a position to make that determination. In fact, the movement is largely apolitical as it relates strictly to Critical Theory as applied to superhero comics and does not endorse any political movements or candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.104.23 (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Having made the declaration above, where are ‘’your’’ sources? Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• What do you find inadequate about them? At a glance, three of them are from peer-reviewed journals. Meanwhile I'm not seeing the connection to Critical Theory at all in the sources (could you be referring to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory? Per the sources on that article, the modern usage of that conspiracy theory is broadly an alt-right tactic. See eg. this paper, which goes into depth on how they use it to unite various alt-right obsessions into a single conspiracy theory.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The sources themselves are inadequate because the articles are editorial pieces expressing views intended to demonize Comicsgate. They are not sources providing any factual data, merely conjecture and projecting labels on something they're opposed to. The article as it stands is clearly biased against Comicsgate and plays lots of o little disingenuous games to try to present the statements made as being objective rather than demonization. 71.56.4.128 (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Articles in the Journal of Graphic Novels and Comics and in Critical Studies in Media Communications are scholarly articles, not "editorials", and have plenty of "factual data". Grandpallama (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Allegedly Alt Right?

• I'm guessing the real question here is that, is merely accusing a person or entity of being Altright a justifiable source of labeling it as such. Or does a person or group need to openly declare themselves as alt right in order for the classification to be handed down without prejudice?

• The sources listed are very biased, and are simply accusations - there are no sources of the group themselves identifying w/ the alt right. This is mostly because the group simply doesn't. But it has been established within this talk page that Wiki does not consider Comicsgate themselves to be a reputable source. So we have a situation where their own statements cannot be sourced.

• Its a super awkward situation. It's basically the media pointing to Comicsgaters and screaming "you're a witch." The Comicsgaters themselves are screaming back that they aren't at all, but unfortunately the accusations are coming from reputable sources (according Wiki anyhow).

• I personally do believe that a group should have to self-identify as Alt Right in order to be categorized as such. However, there is argument to be made that the "alt right" are to be classified (by wiki at least) as a hate group. In which case, hardly anybody w/ any sense will ever knowingly out themselves as apart of a hate group. In which case, its up to Wiki to document third party sources in order to draw out the classification.

• For example, it'll be a cold day in hell when a bonafide celebrity comes out and declares that they are a "white supremacist." However, if it's commonly accepted that they are indeed a white supremacist, then these accusations will be sourced, and the article will make note of it. Although, I'm fairly certain that the article would state "alleged white supremacist" in the initial blurb. Then later in the article there would be a section titled "white supremacist accusations" that would go into greater depth. Perhaps, this is the correct way to approach the "alt right" angle within this article?

--PopCultureSuperHero (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• I personally do believe that a group should have to self-identify as Alt Right in order to be categorized as such. That's not how Wikipedia works, as was already explained to you earlier on this same talkpage. We describe subjects as sources describe them, and in the case of controversial descriptions, as multiple reliable sources describe them. Once you start alleging The sources listed are very biased, it's difficult to take your comments seriously. Grandpallama (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• That is why I clarified that it was my personal belief. I made entire bullet points dedicated to the issues that you reference. There were whole bullet points dedicated to explaining how Wiki currently operates, and why this is a nuanced issue. I saw both sides of it, and tried to find a compromise that would satisfy both sides, and comply w/ Wiki standards. I take offense to your last line that somehow my comments shouldn't be taken seriously. That's pretty petty. PopCultureSuperHero (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• You've claimed that The Washington Post, Inverse, Syfy, the Journal of Graphic Novels and Comics, Critical Studies in Media Communications, Vulture, and Buzzfeed News (among others) are very biased. These are all highly respected, high quality sources, and if your argument centers around questioning their validity, then yes, it's difficult to take your comments, or the argument which they are in support of, seriously; that's a not a personal observation about you, but about the quality of the case you're making. The description of Comicsgate is not a both sides issue where reliable sources differ on their understanding and definition of the movement, and where Wikipedia is failing to accurately represent the sources. Separately, is this your only account on Wikipedia? Grandpallama (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I don't have problems with the sources themselves (except probably buzzfeed) but the content of what we are sourcing from those articles. In this particular scenario it is about the "alt-right" labeling.
• I've begged the question, how does one determine whether or not to label a person or movement as alt-right? Does that person/organization need to self-declare themselves as "alt right" or are journalists labeling that person/organization as such good enough for a Wikipedia citation?
• I would think that if we replace the term "alt-right" with "witch" it should become easier to understand the point I'm making. Is Comicsgate an actual witch, or is it an "alleged witch?" I think that this is a discussion that is probably worth having, and the one I wish to engage in.
• It is possible that the answer is indeed "yes." It is good enough for a citation, and the example I gave previously was that nobody in their right-minds would ever self identify as a white supremacist, as that label would be a career killer. In this case, it probably is good enough for a citation, since logically we can't ever expect a white supremacist to actually come out and admit it. Since that person/organization themselves are not credible sources, then we need to trust, and therefore cite, the sources that are indeed historically credible.
• So once again, the question is, does the label "alt-right" carry the same type of weight? Can we not expect in good faith for alt-right groups to self-identify as such, and therefore must trust the credible sources at hand? Or, is it not in the same scope, and the term "alleged" should be applied?
• Also, yes this is my only WIki account, and for the record, I don't appreciate your lack of attempt to engage in "good faith" discussion. PopCultureSuperHero (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• To be clear, while you keep talking about "the media", the sources used for the line in question are largely academic papers in peer-reviewed journals. What is your issue with these sources? --Aquillion (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I don't actually have an issue with the sources themselves. I have a problem with what we are referencing from those sources. These sources believe Comicgate to be an "Alt-Right" movement, so they label it as such. However, is that enough for a citation?
• That is all I mean by "biased" - just because they believe it to be so, does that actually make it so? Maybe it does? Maybe it doesn't? That is the discussion that I'm trying to have. PopCultureSuperHero (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• These sources believe Comicgate to be an "Alt-Right" movement, so they label it as such. However, is that enough for a citation? As you have been repeatedly told, the answer to this question is "Yes". The persistent refusal to accept what reliable sources say about this movement and the attempt to push an alternative narrative here that is not supported by sourcing is increasingly problematic. Grandpallama (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• I don't believe that things are as "black and white" as you are making them. Earlier in this talkpage the user Ludicer mentioned that writing from a neutral point of view doesn't mean turning off one's critical thinking cap, especially in regards to recognizing the validity of sourced info. As such I thought the discussion of whether or not to self-impose the word "allegedly" when a person/group doesn't self-identify was a discussion worth having, but so far you haven't been very nice, and this leads me to believe that engaging with your further would not be very productive. So I will concede, and take my exit. However, I will leave you with this: "kindness is a gift that everyone can afford to give" — Preceding unsigned comment added by PopCultureSuperHero (talk • contribs) 05:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe that the bar to being categorised as "alt-right" should be higher than simply disagreeing with the liberal establishment Robert the sith (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Since you're responding to a comment from over a year ago, it's not clear who you are talking to or what kind of response you expect. For contested descriptions, Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. If reliable sources say that this is alt-right, the article should reflect those sources with as little editorializing as possible. Grayfell (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Currentness of content?

Just wanted to ask - I've never actually heard of this before (I'm not generally a comics person), reading through the article it first sounded like this was an ongoing thing, but I've noticed all the things called out (and most of the cites) are from 2018. Was Comicsgate something of the time that has gone away, or is it still ongoing? Not suggesting the article needs major changes if the whole thing has died down, but maybe something in the lede? 92.239.8.4 (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Comicsgate is still around and has since rebranded itself as The Fandom Menace - notice the redirect? That is their handiwork that wiki editors didn't bother cleaning up. They regularly make headlines, but for some reason, all of their harrassment and trolling is treated by wikipedia as standalone cases with no connection to one-another, or the group behind it. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It's up to reliable sources, not editors, and most of those headlines are in unreliable gossip sites. That article was deleted in 2020, but none of the 4 sources it cited at that time mention comicsgates. The connection between these nebulous groups is obvious, but Wikipedia needs reliable sources to explain this. "Obvious" isn't good enough. Grayfell (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The Fandom Menace and Comicsgate are 2 separate groups with 2 separate motivations. Smh... How are you guys doing your research? Darkgift (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Are they really all that separate in motivations though? CreecregofLife (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

No, but we need sources. If reliable sources explain the connection between these vague labels, let's see them. Grayfell (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

What is Comicsgate.org?

[1] Looks like at least one editor may have used it as a source for creators of Comicsgate. Doug Weller talk 07:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It looks like an aggregator of comicsgate-related videos and crowd-funding links. I couldn't find any indication of who publishes it, nor any editorial oversight. At a glance, some of the videos linked on that site recycle content from Infowars, Daily Wire, and likely other WP:RSP favorites. It's not reliable, nor even useful as a primary source. Grayfell (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. It was being used as a source for founders as I recall. Doug Weller talk 20:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hate group

Why is it not permissable to call Comicsgate a hate group? It is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.167.229 (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Because the bad guys in Comicsgate include multiple high profile trans, gay, and female comic creators who have been caught repeatedly making death threats against Youtube reviewers and threatening the careers of anyone isn't 100% lockstep with their crap? 172.243.244.217 (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you have reliable independent sources for that? You deleted a lot of well-sourced information and replaced it with accusations (some of them potentially libelous, like your comments here) which weren't backed up by sources. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Who classified them as a hate group? The FBI? The Southern Poverty Law Center? You don't get to call a group a hate group just because you don't like them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.85.186.6 (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia guidelines, articles must be written from a neutral point of view. The following is a statement by a promenent Comic creator from the comicsgate movement:

"Comicsgate is the people who share the same belief that those who run the major publishing companies in the comics industry are treating their fans poorly. In part due to their constant pushing of social justice or other political ideologies. In part due to some creators and editors outright insulting the fans who disagree with said ideologies.Comicsgate is not about political ideology or identity. There are conservatives and liberals, there are black and white, gay and straight, Christian and Atheist, and everything under the sun. Where comicsgate people disagree is not where they put their focus. It’s where they agree that they ally: Comics are about entertainment, not political or ideological proselytizing. That is the line in the sand that has brought a disparate group of people together to change comics as a medium back to what it was when they fell in love with the genre." What is Comicsgate?

That does not sound to me like a hate group. Roncon1 (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Original research is forbidden here. You need reliable sources which state that this is not a misogynist group, not your opinion or a primary source. And by the way, Stan Lee's stories about the Sons of the Serpent were preaching against hate groups and the Ku Klux Klan, Chris Claremont's X-Men: God Loves, Man Kills was a warning against religious fanatics, and a number of Howard the Duck stories were parodies of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (called Mahagreasy Migraine Yogi in Marvel stories) and other gurus who were financially exploiting the gullible. Comics were always about politics. Dimadick (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of disagreement is that you need reliable sources which state that this is a hate-group. If individuals in this movement have simply been labeled hateful, misogynistic, racist, bigoted, transphobic (or any other libelous words) by other individuals in your "reliable sources", then it must be stated as such. Roncon1 (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This is so important, and I am simply floored that someone would try to argue the opposite. It is NOT the responsibility of a writer or editor to prove pejoratives, slander and gossip are false--it is the the responsibility of the writer to prove they might be true and simply quoting or linking to a Jezebel or Polygon article isn't going to do the trick. Wikipedia is explicitly about "Keeping to the facts" and allowing history and the reader to determine the context. You can quote what people said, you can say, "The SPLC reports <whatever> as a hate group," but you CANNOT say, "<so-and-so> is a mysogynist" and fool yourself for a minute that you're providing anything other than an extremely biased point-of-view. This type of mindless and shallow activism is tearing Wikipedia apart and making it virtually useless for any event or biography within the past decade. This is not the place for your point of view. Data.kindnet (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Data.kindnet: Please note the time stamp. You are responding to a comment from 2019, so it's not clear who you are talking to here. I'll also add that people who are most likely to see this are experienced editors who have already had this conversation dozens of times, and to be blunt, your point isn't new and hasn't been persuasive in the past.

As explained, Wikipedia does not publish original research and we use reliable sources to determine what is and is not factual. If reliable sources say one thing, we need other reliable sources to contradict it. That isn't activism, it's just how Wikipedia works as a tertiary source. Grayfell (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Comicsgate is not a 'hategroup' and it is not against 'diversity' in comics. They are against Marxist, identity politics in comics and against replacing 50 year old characters because they are the wrong gender or race. It is a reaction against far left intersectionality, racism and bigotry against 'straight white cis gendered males'. Unfortunately Marxists only have one reaction to opposition to their divisive divisiveness and discrimination and that is to label people as a 'hategroup' or 'Nazis'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boobrancher (talk • contribs) 10:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

What does Marxism have to do with women in comics? I must have missed that chapter. Koncorde (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of sources

I think Aquillion has been overly zealous in deleting citations and the information they support. For example, we should not remove a source just because it doesn't mention "Comicsgate" by name, when it's writing about someone named elsewhere in the article as part of the Comicsgate movement (Chuck Dixon), and he's talking about one of the key topics that Comicsgate is about (alleged political discrimination). Additionally, the reliability of sources is not a black/white matter. WP:SELFSOURCE: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". WP:BIASED: "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." For example, an interview in which A says X can be used as a source for statement that "A said X". Articles written by Comicsgate participants articulating what Comicsgate is about can (and should) be used as sources for direct quotes articulating what they say Comicsgate is about. An iffy-quality source that reproduces public social media posts in which Antarctic announced that they weren't publishing a Meyer's book can be a source for that information. The factor driving the decision about whether to cite a source should be whether it serves to confirm the information in the article, not whether they deserve to be linked to.Magic9Ball (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I strenuously disagree that the paragraph about Dixon alleging he was fired for his conservative views has any relevance at all, no. None of the sources we're citing connect it to Comicsgate; including it here has a WP:SYNTH implication that either 1) he was blacklisted for supporting Comicsgate, which we have no sources supporting, or 2) his blacklisting somehow serves as a supporting argument for Comicsgate's beliefs, which none of the sources even remotely hint at. (For that matter, the article doesn't currently even state that Comicsgate's beliefs are conservative in nature - since the sources all specifically say that Dixon was fired for his conservative beliefs, what makes you immediately assume that those beliefs relate to Comicsgate?) The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to summarize what other sources say about the subject, not to present its own arguments about the subject. If you have a reliable source saying "Dixon was fired and that proves Comicsgate is right", we could quote them on that; but we cannot (even implicitly) make that argument ourselves - that's WP:SYNTH.

As far as WP:SELFSOURCE goes, you missed two vital points. First, we cannot use such sources for things that are unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. Obviously, given how controversial Comicsgate is, people who support or identify with it casting its beliefs in positive light or saying that it is about positive things is a self-serving claim, and therefore requires independent secondary sourcing; most of these claims are also clearly WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Second, we cannot use those cites for anything involving claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); these cites are being used to make sweeping accusations against both organizations and individuals, as well as to claim motivations for an entire group of people that none of the people being cited officially represent. Third, such citations cannot be used for cites about events not directly related to the subject; again, they are making sweeping claims about an entire group and, indirectly, an entire industry. This is almost a textbook case of an unusable self-source - WP:SELFSOURCE is meant to be used for simple uncontroversial biographical details, not for things like this. As far as The factor driving the decision about whether to cite a source should be whether it serves to confirm the information in the article, not whether they deserve to be linked to goes, that is absolutely wrong. We don't judge sources based on whether they 'deserve to be linked to', but on whether they pass WP:RS - whether they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Exceptional or controversial claims, in particular, require high-quality sources, so (given its controversial nature) saying "Comicsgate is about X" is something that requires high-quality sources. --Aquillion (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the trimming of some of the sources; the comic book industry mostly relies on blogs for its journalism, and many of them work their way into comic book articles. However, per BRD, the material about Dixon probably should not have been removed again, since its removal was challenged. I don't think WP is either arguing that Dixon was blacklisted or that said blacklisting validates Comicsgate claims; while your edit summary says we're implying he was blacklisted for supporting Comicsgate, we're stating in WP's voice that Dixon claims he was blacklisted for his beliefs and even providing a Bleeding Cool citation that calls that claim into question (Dixon has a compendium of his Batman work coming out in the next few months, which is another blow to that claim). Comicsgate is a conservative movement (our first source in the article points out that its membership is "mostly white, male conservatives", and the Daily Beast refers to a comic historian describing it as part of a surge in alt-right and conservative boldness) with ties to the alt-right that are mentioned by almost every source. Dixon self-identifies as an outspoken Comicsgater (here he calls himself "the Jesus of Comicsgate" [2]), and it's fairly clear from all the context that these are the conservative politics that he believes resulted in a supposed blacklisting.

I'm also not sure I completely agree with the WP:SELFSOURCE argument, either, which is about preventing Wikipedia from basing its statements on questionable sources. Comicsgate sources are not okay for making statements in WP's voice about what Comicsgate is, but I'm not clear on how they are unacceptable as sources for what Comicsgate claims it is. But even if I'm wrong about that (which is entirely possible!), I'm unclear on the objection to PJMedia in this edit. Is there something problematic about that source which I'm not seeing?

Separately, this edit removed text with an edit summary that the source didn't explicitly mention Comicsgate, but the source was being used to support text about the replacement of characters during the timeframe in question, not about Comicsgate. Grandpallama (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the other diffs that Grandpallama mentioned above, but at least in terms of this edit deletion, I have to agree with Aquillion. It shouldn't be in this article, especially under the "Views" section, since none of the sources mention Comicsgate. To leave it in with inline citations is a bit misleading, since then we are basically saying that Dixon's thoughts are a "Comisgate View" without reliable sourcing.

And if his view that he was blacklisted really is (specifically) a part of Comicsgate, then I assume it should be easy enough to find a source out there that mentions Comicsgate as well? Either way, at the moment, I agree that sentence seems like WP:SYNTH. - Whisperjanes (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The article never said or implied that Dixon's participation in Comicsgate was the reason for his alleged blacklisting. That was a mistaken inference. In descriving the views of CG particpants, the article reported that Dixon cites his lack of work as an example of general political blacklisting. As for whether a belief in political blacklisting is a "Comicsgate view", we had sources[3][4] verifying that, but Aquillon insisted that Comicsgate participants can't be quoted directly in describing their views. I disagree with that, both as a matter of principle and based on policy. While self-published sources are not reliable for statements of fact about that person, they are perfect valid sources for information about the views and claims of that person. WP:BIASED even says such sources can be "the best possible sources" for that kind of information. It advises that Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..." and that is exactly what we are doing. When EVS says to a supportive interviewer that Comicsgate is "a consumer-led revolt against what is clearly a left-wing dominance in the comic book industry",[5] it is not "extraordinary" to report that "Van Sciver said that...." Magic9Ball (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand this: "Obviously, given how controversial Comicsgate is, people who support or identify with it casting its beliefs in positive light or saying that it is about positive things is a self-serving claim, and therefore requires independent secondary sourcing;"

If you wanted to know what a person in a movement thinks the movement is then it seems that quoting them saying what they think it is is completely reasonable. You can use the same primary sources or (maybe) secondary sources to describe the ways in which they aren't adhering to their beliefs, but saying that a person describing their movement is a self-serving claim is just wrong. A person saying, "our movement is responsible for returning <x> back to a state of goodness, and we're warriors for all that is just and right," might be a self-serving claim, but is also the frame the individual is using and seems important to understanding the origin and mindset of said movement's adherents.

The problem really seems to be that there's a conflict between what a "trusted" secondary source might say about a movement vs. what the movement says about itself. Attempting to separate the two along ideological lines is incorrect because there's no guarantee that either are adhering to any standards of objectivity. We're living through an era where even the Wikipedia:Reliable sources is highly contentious. As people interested in promoting dispassionate, informative and accurate articles we have to be hard-liners against any type of motivated reasoning and quick to push articles back toward neutrality even if it might reduce some level of fidelity. Data.kindnet (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Why, exactly, do we "[want] to know what a person in a movement thinks the movement is"? That reason matters a great deal. We don't add this kind of info just because we can. That is not how Wikipedia works in general, and it would be unworkable here specifically.

So who gets to speak for Comicsgate in this situation? Per the article, it had "no official hierarchy". Anything said by Meyer or Van Scriver would need to be attributed to those people as individuals, not on behalf of the campaign (or "movement if you wish). So who gets to decide which quotes are important and which are not? Which quotes are vitally important, and which are cherry-picking? Digging through obscure interviews to paint a picture is a form of editorializing. Further, this article isn't about those individuals, it's about the entire campaign. Therefore, we need reliable, secondary sources to decide which quotes are important, and without those sources, this won't work. We use those sources to see if these quotes are due weight, and if they actually help readers understand the topic. From this perspective, being unduly self-serving is a valid reason to exclude content.

Per long-standing consensus, Wikipedia requires reliable sources (contentious or not), and also strongly favors independent sources. This talk page isn't the place to challenge that consensus.

As for motivated reasoning, please see WP:GEVAL. Neutrality is decided by sources, not by editors. We don't include unreliable sources to balance out reliable ones which some editors disagree with, because that is false balance. Grayfell (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)