Talk:Video game addiction

Latest edits

Flyer 22 Edits Dear Flyer22. You recent cut some edits I'd worked on noting some issues with them. I did remove the one "controversial" you mentioned and I'm happy to make further edits you feel are necessary (you're always welcome to make them of course!). I would ask if you could make suggestions here then we can work out some compromises. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.225.5.126 (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Research on the effects of violence in mass media#Latest edits. Permalink here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I am joining the conversation there. I still think the new edits, which I certainly acknowledge are going to be imperfect, are a better place to make further revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.225.5.126 (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:BRD if you haven't already. The changes shift the article's POV, which needs to addressed and handled more openly. Grayfell (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This is regarding this edit, which I reverted. The changes contained too many WP:WEASEL words and other editorializing language. "...often been controversial..." would need a reliable, independent sources specifically saying that to avoid POV issues. WP:CSECTION is an essay which explains part of why this is a pitfall. The changes also hung a lot of content entirely on this letter, which is usable, but only with context and caveats. "As noted in a recent article by a large group of scholars" is not going to work at all. This is a bundle of WP:PEACOCKs, as it's using a single source to undermine multiple other sources far beyond due weight, while vaguely appealing to the authority of unnamed "scholars". It's helpful to keep in mind that pretty much every recent proposal in psychology, especially developmental psychology and addiction, has been described by someone as "controversial", so we really should be using more WP:SECONDARY sources to make these assessments. Attribution and context should be provided by those sources, as well, otherwise we risk WP:SYNTH. Addiction is a medical issue, so a review of WP:MEDRS couldn't hurt, either. Grayfell (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the specific feedback which helps a lot. I don't think the wording issues should be too difficult to fix. Neither should be getting more secondary sources if that's what appears to be lacking. I'll try to get to this soon, make some edits and see what folks think! Thanx again for making some specific comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.225.5.126 (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Talk

I found about video game addiction in Wikipedia. The good thing is that they gave us good explanation of what is video game addiction. Also, they give us good statistics so we can believe them more. They also show us the references where they found out from. However, anyone can write in wikipedia so people should make sure if every sources and informations is true. Also, I want to know more about how people get addicted easily, not just knowing about treatments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.93.165 (talk • contribs)

Notable deaths

Shouldn't Brian Vigneault be mentioned? https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/24/father-dies-during-24-hour-video-game-marathon/21721198/ Gentleman wiki (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The way the statement about Rebecca Colleen Christie is phrased makes it sound like it was the daughter who was playing World of Warcraft rather than the mother.

Edit out irrelevant information

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_addiction#China

I want to edit out

"Treatment for the patients, most of whom have been forced to attend by parents or government officials, include various forms of pain including shock therapy.[30][31] In August 2009, Deng Sanshan was reportedly beaten to death in a correctional facility for video game and Web addiction.[32]"

This is from 2007. I don't understand how a crime is releveant to addiction treatment. I think it has no relevance to the topic. Should I edit this out? Ogomemnon (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It is under the notable deaths area and the circumstances showed the depth of the addiction so my opinion is to leave it in. - Pmedema (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)