Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 59

This is an archive of past discussions about Gamergate (harassment campaign). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 55

←

Archive 57

Gjoni, Depression Quest and BLP, again

I suppose I must again commence the Sisyphean task of the matter of Gjoni, Depression Quest, Kotaku etc. The text on this keeps changing so many times that it's impossible to keep track. Let me first lay out some facts:

Gjoni wrote "The Zoe Post". The post never mentions Depression Quest, never mentions a review; and it sure as hell doesn't mention a review of Depression Quest. In the post, there was a typo up for a while, which said "March" instead of "May". Some people on 4chan (and elsewhere) read the initial post, noticed the name "Kotaku" and made the (incorrect) inference about the favourable reviews for sex. This inference was debunked very early, and very definitively. Gjoni later corrected this typo, and explicitly disavowed this inference.

Absolutely zero sources disagree with these facts, because they're all true.

Now, we come to the nub of the matter: how to describe what happened? Some sources say that Gjoni himself "implied" (or the even more weasel-wordy "seemed to imply") the allegation of favourable reviews for sex. I am sure you can find plenty of sources stating this (some of them are linked in the WP article). There are also plenty of sources which state that the inference was drawn by people who read the post -- without assigning any intent to Gjoni (example, example), example).

IMO: here's what we should do. We should keep BLP in mind. To ascribe intent to Gjoni (implied or otherwise) is neither a good idea, nor is it even required. Shit happened, whether or not Gjoni intended it. The important thing is to note that shit happened, not to vilify Gjoni. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

It's simply not accurate to say it that this was done 'incorrectly', which is a nonbinary proposition. It is flatly and completely wrong, so 'false' is the better wording. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Let me clarify: this section is not about one word. I am objecting to this whole paragraph:

The event that would come to be known as Gamergate began in 2014 as a personal attack on Quinn and her sex life, incited by a blog post by Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni. Called the "Zoe Post", it was a lengthy, detailed account of their relationship and breakup that included copies of personal chat logs, emails, and text messages. The blog falsely implied that Quinn had gotten a favorable review of Depression Quest because of her sexual relationship with Nathan Grayson, a video-game reviewer for the website Kotaku. Grayson never actually reviewed Quinn's games, and Grayson's only article mentioning her was published before their relationship began. Gjoni later updated his blog post to acknowledge this, saying that a typographical error was to blame for the insinuation. Nonetheless, a link to the blog posted on 4chan, where many participants had previously been highly critical of Depression Quest, led to renewed attacks on Quinn.

It strongly ascribes malicious intent to Gjoni. I would prefer the text which was there earlier, which was changed for reasons unknown to me:

In August 2014, Eron Gjoni, Quinn's former boyfriend, published the "Zoe Post", a 9,425-word blog post that quoted from personal chat logs, emails, and text messages to describe their relationship. The post, described as "a rambling online essay" in The New York Times, complained, among other things, that Quinn entered a romantic relationship with Nathan Grayson, a journalist for the Gawker Media video game website Kotaku. The post was linked on 4chan, where some erroneously claimed the relationship had induced Grayson to publish a favorable review of Depression Quest. Grayson had never reviewed Quinn's games and Grayson's only article for Kotaku mentioning her was published before their relationship began. Gjoni later updated his blog post to acknowledge this.

. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Gjoni claimed that Grayson wrote a favorable review. It's pretty clear that the only thing it could reasonably be was _Depression Quest_; this fact comes up over and over in the articles that debunk the favorable review nonsense. "Incorrect" implies merely factually wrong. "False" implies bias. And the entire Zoe Post was an exhibition of Gjoni's animus and bias. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

No, you're flat out wrong. Have you even read the post? Read what I wrote above: the post never mentions a review, and sure as hell never mentions a review of Depression Quest, let alone one written by Grayson. Absolutely zero sources say that Gjoni "claimed that Grayson wrote a favorable review". (since there's a ton written on this topic, probably you can find some source which actually repeats this mistaken view, but the vast majority of the sources do not say this). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm certain you'll be able to provide us with reliable sources that support your point of view.--Jorm (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Oblique references, learn how they are used. I suggest you read up about "5 guys burgers and fries". -- 01:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForbiddenRocky (talk • contribs)

Do people even read what I write, or am I totally wasting my time? Gjoni never made any claim about reviews or whatever. There exist sources saying that he "implied" (what you call "oblique references"). There are also plenty of sources who do not say that Gjoni "implied".

What is important is what Gjoni's readers inferred, not what he may or may not have implied. If 4chan didn't exist, it would have made no difference whether or not Gjoni "implied" anything. Gjoni's intent is irrelevant to the issue. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, somebody implying something is an active act. Some sources not mentioning this does not mean it didn't happen. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, when you say someone is acting with malice, you better have damn good reasons for saying so. Plenty of sources did not make this leap, but the passage in the WP article does.

Why are people even ascribing malicious intent to Gjoni? Why does every tragedy need a villain? Would it not be a tragedy otherwise? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

It blows my mind that people are still trying to trot out the "no malicious intent/it's about ethics in journalism/criticism is not harassment" arguments even today.--Jorm (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I have yet to read a single comment of yours which adds anything except ignorant snark. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Yikes. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The RS supports the text. That some editors refuse to acknowledge that which is obvious, and well supported, is not grounds for weasel wording what Gjoni did. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Title this article: Gamergate

This is related to the above section, but there's a simpler and better solution to the matter. This article should simply be called "Gamergate". It's beyond ridiculous that the main page for Gamergate is for the ant. Then we can sidestep all the silly discussion about whether it's a "controversy" or not. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

In 20 or 30 years no one is going to care so much about the entitled whining of the manosphere. But the Ant will still exist, even if we don't.--Jorm (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I support Jorm's comment here. gamergate -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

There's no guarantee that Wikipedia will exist in 20 to 30 years, so it's completely irrelevant. On scholar.google.com the top results I find are about #Gamergate (the online shitshow), not Gamergate (the ant). If you look at the past 4 or so years (since GG started), it's even more stark. The pageviews on this page are many orders of magnitude greater than the other page. Not only that, I'm pretty sure that a fair amount of pageviews on the ant page actually are by people who mistakenly go to the ant page: you can see this by the weird spikes observed on the ant page, which happen to coincide with one of the periodic episodes in this soap opera.

There's absolutely no logical reason (except snobbery) to keep the ant page as the main page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

First off, let's keep this civil. Accusing others of snobbery isn't going to help. Second, perhaps you should read through the Archives on this talk page, as this topic has been discussed extensively. If you have a new argument to make, or just a different take on the proposal, feel free to discuss it here and see if others agree. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I did make an argument (the entire first paragraph). I have indeed read through the archives; indeed I participated the last time there was a move discussion. I am not sure if there have been any more since then, but it's been more than two years, so perhaps it's time for a new one. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

While I have some sympathy for Kingsindian's position, I think the current situation is the best for now. If indeed the online donnybrook holds the public mind for a few more years, it may well be worth revisiting. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean, so far the only argument you're making is "it's better known." While a good point, as Dumuzid points out, this is still a rather recent event. It may turn into a minor point of history that's barely a blip on the radar, while the ant exists for centuries. So I don't see an *urgent* need to move it, meaning we'd need more reasons than what you've presented so far. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that's not the only argument I'm making. But consider the following fact: the page on the ant was created a month or so before this article. Consider a counterfactual: there was no page on the ant, and this article was originally titled "Gamergate". Now, suppose someone came to this page and argued about moving this page to "Gamergate controversy", so that the ant would have the main page. Would you do it? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I like to think I would -- scientific etymologies tend to be "stickier" in language than do less systematic coinages. If circumstances prove consensus is against me, I wouldn't lose any sleep over this proposed change; I fear, however, I am not going to be a proponent of it any time soon. Happy Monday, all. Dumuzid (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The question wasn't directed to you, but I call bullshit on that answer. What does that "stickier" comment even mean, except as a put down? I'll make a $10 bet on the following proposition: "Five years from now, you'll still be finding new articles on Google Scholar about this shitshow". I'll even give odds if you like.

I have been seeing this "oh this is just a flash in the pan which nobody will care about in the future" comment for years now. Last time there was a move request (in late 2015), I had a long discussion with Thibbs who claimed that the interest in this term was already dying (since it was down from its peak in late-2014). They even made the rash prediction that this topic will be of little or no interest to people at this same time next year. Well, I mentioned that the monthly pageviews at that time were about 80-90k. What was the monthly pageviews this year? Answer: 85k. How did that prediction work out? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Kingsindian, "stickier" means "tends to stay in the language longer with the same meaning." I did not mean it as a put down in any way. The term "dinosaur" has proven far "stickier" than "23 Skidoo." That is not to say there's anything wrong with "23 Skidoo." Have a great day! Dumuzid (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Kingsindian I'm also surprised that the entomological community has less chance to produce interlink to Wikipedia, but I'm not sure it really speaks to the long-term staying power of this term as primarily a video game topic. The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. The best you can hope for is the same as the solution achieved in the arguments between the Germans and the video game people who were fighting circa 2007 about the term "DDR". I see they have most recently settled on a disambiguation page. In fact we have one at Gamergate (disambiguation) too. Would it make life better if the video game people didn't have to be assaulted with the original scientific term when they came to read about the juicy details of the women who have been harassed via GamerGate (note the correct use of CamelCase)? I don't find the argument that there is any confusion between the articles credible anyway. There appears to be no correlation between the two pages so there is no confusion between the two articles anyway. -Thibbs (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

How is the harassment campaign more notable than the ant? The trolling is barely a blip 4 years after the fact. I don't see it gaining in importance. The ant will continue to have import for years more. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The trolling is such a blip that, in 2018, Gamergate is still being linked to everything from Star Wars to Trump to neo-nazis, and writers are celebrating the death of people who didn't blanket condemn GG. This article should really be renamed Gamergate now because the media and entertainment industry have no intention of letting such a clickbaity topic die. That's what RS > Common Sense gets us. AWildAppeared (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you underestimate the allure of myrmecology. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

A couple more recent sources on the enduring legacy of GG in multiple places: "Alt-right internet mobs are attacking celebrities with their own jokes. The irony is stark" and "Sarah Jeong, The New York Times, and the Gamergate School of Journalism". More in the first than the second, but it does suggest that GG-inspired harassment is not going away quite yet. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

How about "Gamergate (hate group)"? ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] --ChiveFungi (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

References

^ "The Creator of a GamerGate Subreddit Deserves No Credit for Deleting It". Waypoint. 2018-07-13. Retrieved 2018-07-14.
^ Lees, Matt (2016-12-01). "What Gamergate should have taught us about the 'alt-right'". the Guardian. Retrieved 2018-07-14.
^ "Domestic violence task force calls GamerGate a 'hate group' at congressional briefing". Polygon. Retrieved 2018-07-14.
^ Allaway, Jennifer. "#Gamergate Trolls Aren't Ethics Crusaders; They're a Hate Group". Jezebel. Retrieved 2018-07-14.

Shutdown of KotakuInAction subreddit and its return

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Make the article more accurate and unbiased

The article labels Gamergate as a harassment campaign. This is only one side of the story. It doesn't cover a ton of important things, and is very clearly written from the perspective of someone who opposes the movement, rather than an objective viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioLuigi0404 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@MarioLuigi0404: What is the other side of the story? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The side of those who support the movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioLuigi0404 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

They get their say; but since there are no reliable sources that support the "reforming game journalism" version, by definition the article mostly explains what the reliable sources report: the harassment campaign. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that show that there is, actually, "another side to the story"? Because there isn't, as near as all of us can tell. You can go back to reddit, little one.--Jorm (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

This article should be labelled NPOV

There is no consensus on whether this was a "harassment" issue or a "revolt against journalism bias" event. Yet, this article heavily leans to the "harassment" point of view, which is obviously not neutral. In such instances, isn't it Wikipedia's policy to slap an NPOV tag until both points of view are equally reflected in the article? But of course, the article is "protected" so that no such tag can be added ... Doesn't this sound like the KGB when it pretended to "protect" soviet citizenry ?

I think that this kind of thing is harming Wikipedia's reputation in a really stupid way. And this is too bad because, from my experience, Wikipedia IS reliable in 99.9999999 % percent of its content (I use it constantly for teaching purposes). Yet, one hears increasingly often that Wikipedia is "biased" because of a small number of articles like this one.

I think that the Wikipedia community should come to grasp with the fact that the encyclopedic format is utterly inapplicable to such issues.

Here is a suggestion: Why not adopt a different format for the few articles of this kind (controversial contemporary issues)? Why not adopt a forensic-like format, like the minutes of a trial, in which there would be two (or more) accounts displayed side by side, each presenting a particular POV, together with a voting system in which readers could decide to support one of the accounts. The order of appearance could then be decided by the voting results, for example. Fi11222 (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is not decided by votes. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

As a teacher you should know that you do not teach things "equally". You teach the notable, reliable, evidence about the subject and then, for context, you may also mention some smaller aspect of alternative view points and counter-claims from similar notable, reliable evidence and sources. If the alternative opinions are utterly vacuous or stupid formulated, or without evidence, however you probably choose not to present them at all. Not all opinions matter. Koncorde (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

That's true, but there are differences between scholarship and building a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, built primarily on reliable, secondary, published sources. Primary sources are used in a limited fashion, WP:Original Research not at all. For scholarship, the literature review is important, but so are primary sources and original research. As a result of this, there are cases when perfectly valid information is not suitable for Wikipedia. As a corollary, if Reliable Sources are biased or in error, this can carry over to Wikipedia. I agree that this can create problems, but it's not likely that a solution will be implemented without systemic reform. Xcalibur (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure 4chan (and other such groups) would agree to the "votes decide content" method... Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

RE: Accusation of making "false claims"

Just a little notification: Should NorthBySouthBaranof or anyone else here care to read my last replies to the above thread that I started, you'll have to go on "View history" first and look at the revisions that have been undid by a certain manchild here who apparently cannot tolerate any criticism or opposing opinions, or just doesn't like the taste of his own medicine very much. Since I've experienced first hand what the "discussion" culture here looks like and realized it's completely pointless to continue this as long as condescending people like Jorm censor any reply they can't counter, this will be the last you read from me here. Hopefully in the future there will be more unbiased and mature admins responsible for articles like this. Billy7 (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Have a nice evening, all the best. Dumuzid (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Mercedes Carrera

GAMERGATE’S MERCEDES CARRERA ARRESTED FOR SEXUAL ABUSE OF A YOUNG CHILD https://www.newsweek.com/mercedes-carrera-gamergate-melinda-smith-actress-rancho-cucamonga-1322242 ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

This part might be useful for RS:

"Prompted by false allegations made by an ex-boyfriend of game developer Zoe Quinn in 2014, Gamergate activists harassed women game developers and video game analysts. While adherents claimed Gamergate was a crusade against journalistic bias they saw in games journalism, several of their principal claims were false, including that a game developer had sex with a game reviewer in exchange for a favorable review (the site ran no review of her game)."  -ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow. While that story is stomach-churning, more grist for the mill. I'm not sure it's needed anywhere right at the moment, but good to have. Thanks FR. Dumuzid (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Possibly-useful CJR piece.

This piece devotes a large amount of text to it, discussing its nature and aftermath and particularly connecting it to the origins of the modern anti-progressive YouTube network. It feels like we could update or expand some parts of the article based on coverage like this. --Aquillion (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Accusation of making "false claims"

This is a waste of everyone's time.--Jorm (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It says in the article: "Gamergate supporters have frequently responded to this by denying that the harassment took place or by falsely claiming that it was manufactured by the victims." - As long as there is no evidence that the alleged victims actually faked some of these "harassments", it cannot be proven or disproven if those claims by Gamergate supporters are 100% "false" or not, so just using the word "falsely" as if they were already completely disproven makes absolutely no sense. I suggest the removal of the word "falsely" in that sentence, so we can add at least a little tad of objectivity to this utterly biased article. Billy7 (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Billy7 -- in this case, it seems to me your quarrel is more with the sources cited for that claim than anything else. Moreover, as I read it, the adverb "frequently" modifies "falsely claiming" thus meaning nothing has to be shown to a level of 100%. At this point, I think the sentence is pretty good as it stands, so I would oppose the change, but reasonable minds may differ! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know which sources you mean, since that sentence or paragraph doesn't have one of those little numbers pointing to a source (sorry, I don't know what those are called). Even if you could look at it like you said, with the "frequently" modifying it enough for the statement to make sense, I'd still say the wording kinda distorts it in a way that would make most or close to all readers think there were ONLY false claims of that nature. If the word "falsely" is dropped, the sentence would be just about "claims", which could be - partially or completely - true or false. That's a lot more neutral and basically still states the same thing, except it doesn't solely focus on proven false claims. Billy7 (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The claims are false. Therefore, we'll call them false. We state facts as facts, not opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Which ones exactly? ALL of such claims? There is no possible way to ever prove that. If anything, you can prove that some specific claims in that direction were false. If you just generally say "they are false", you are basically saying ALL such claims are false and there is no way any "victim" could have possibly ever written such a harassment mail herself, which you'd have to prove, which, again, is absolutely impossible. Either specify the exact few couple of claims that were proven false, or say there were "some" false claims, or just mention "claims" in general without judging if they were false or not if you want to include the entirety of such claims. Billy7 (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

You have things entirely backward. It's not up to anyone to prove a negative. It's incumbent on the person making the claim to support it with actual evidence. It's not up to anyone to disprove unevidenced allegations. Please read the sources in this article and move on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

They're false claims. The word is going to stay. --Jorm (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

See above reply to NorthBySouthBaranof. Billy7 (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Billy7 -- the claims are not cited in the lead (we generally call those little numbers "citations" or "footnotes"), but if you continue reading to the relevant portion in the main body of the article, you'll find that claim sourced to the Washington Post and an academic journal. If you have other sources, by all means, point us to them. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Right, footnotes, I knew that one but forgot about it. I found the part you mentioned, and like I said, it's fine to talk about specific false claims, but the part I have issues with makes it sound like all such claims are false, it's just a wording issue. Check my above reply to NorthBySouthBaranof to see what I mean exactly. Billy7 (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no evidence that any victim of Gamergate "manufactured" harassment targeting themselves. Thus, all such claims are false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

You're not saying anything of value, little gator. I'm going to close this as no-action soon.--Jorm (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comicsgate

Comicsgate has its own article now; it's linked in the see-also link here, but not otherwise mentioned. Its page has some of the same sourcing issues that plagued this article early on, but some of the sources there may be useful here. --Aquillion (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality, again.

Nothing is going to come of leaving this open except a pile-on for a new user. If they can come up with sources, we can talk then. Otherwie: this isn't a forum.--Jorm (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article seems to be almost entirely concerned with the harassment involved in gamergate, to the exclusion of other views. Lead sentence included.Rody1990 (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Nearly every source we can find says that gamergate was about harassment and any other positions were smokescreens for the harassment. Feel free to provide reliable sources that say otherwise, and if you can, we can make changes. Otherwise: there's nothing to do here.--Jorm (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Not all sources though, despite you dismissing the claims and its sources to not meet WP:RS, but this is a point that has been made too often already.Rody1990 (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Then bring us the sources we crave. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Bring us a single reliable source. ONE. JUST ONE. No one has before, despite many claims to the contrary. --Jorm (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting history. No edit activity since 2011, then shows up just to chastise us about this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

There may come a day when the nattering numpties of YouTube are considered authoritative as to matters both moral and factual. But it is not today, and it will be over my dead pixels. Cheers, everyone! Dumuzid (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow, rude much, though the lack of activity is true. I wouldn't look to my talk page for that, I use that even less than the rare times I contribute to any articlesRody1990 (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I fear you'll find that editors have somewhat frayed patience when it comes to this article, especially where overly general critiques are concerned. I would encourage you, however, to make whatever suggestions you think are backed by reliable sources. We're nice in cases like that, I promise. Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)