Jump to content

Talk:Kotaku

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78.144.64.62 (talk) at 02:26, 5 October 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Persona 5

Given the fact they had to write an apology for their previous article on Super Smash Bros Ultimate and the unsubstantiated claims of mocking the disabled,https://www.kotaku.co.uk/2019/04/19/we-screwed-up-with-that-persona-lyrichttps://www.kotaku.co.uk/2019/04/19/we-screwed-up-with-that-persona-lyric. This should be included in the controversy section since many gamers and commentators have critiqued Kotaku on their poor editorial standards and reactionary stances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metrotitan (talk • contribs) 19:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They chose to write an apology. They didn't "have to", and were not "forced". Why is this particular retraction worth noting here over any others? Is there coverage from anywhere else about the apology? -- ferret (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this was covered on multiple other sites and Persona fans were quick to critique the original article, the backlash preceded the apology.
http://www.weareresonate.com/2019/04/kotaku-uk-accuses-nintendo-and-persona-5-for-disability-slur-gets-slammed-for-racism-instead/
https://gearnuke.com/kotaku-uk-misinterprets-persona-5-song-lyrics-publishes-an-aplogy-after-fan-backlash/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metrotitan (talk • contribs)
Don’t get me wrong, it was a stupid article, for sure, but it was hardly a website-defining moment. Neither of those websites are noteworthy, reliable sources, and there being a bunch of angry people on social media is hardly indicative of it being a big deal. And ironically, as unforgiving as you are being about bad writing, what you’ve written us just awful. You do a terrible job of summarizing the situation.
  1. No one “forced” them to apologize. They did it of their accord.
  2. You don’t cover things in chronological order, confusingly starting with the apology and then explaining why.
  3. Your summary is short, vague, and inaccurate. A more accurate description would be that they falsely accused a song from Persona 5 of having lyrics using the term “retarded” in a derogatory manner. Atlus informed Nintendo this was false, and Nintendo informed Kotaku UK, who issued a retraction and apology.
  4. At no point do you mention it was their U.K. offshoot.
If we were to add it, it would need to be completely rewritten, but first you need to do a much better job proving that it was a noteworthy incident at all. Did it receive any attention from any reliable sources? If you don’t know what that means on Wikipedia, see WP:VG/S for a list of usable and unusable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 11:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To add into the Kotaku section "Kotaku UK falsely accused Nintendo and Atlus of using a song in Super Smash Bros Ultimate from Persona 5 of having lyrics with the term “retarded” in a derogatory manner. Atlus informed Nintendo this was false, and Nintendo informed Kotaku UK, who issued a retraction and apology."

https://www.kotaku.co.uk/2019/04/19/we-screwed-up-with-that-persona-lyric — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metrotitan (talk • contribs) 18:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Falsely accused" is again loaded language. "incorrectly claimed" would be a more neutral and level headed statement. Either way, I still don't see it as an important event in the site's lifespan. -- ferret (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. He can’t seem to escape the informal “angry guy venting on social media” tone. And I still feel it’s not an important incident either, especially since, as he proved on a separate talk page discussion at my talk page, that zero reliable sources reported on it, just a bunch of obscure amateur bloggers. Sergecross73 msg me 21:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please keep to a civil discussion. There is no need for ad hominem remarks i.e. "angry guy". It is not conducive.
If the wording is unsatisfactory, there is no objection to rewriting a singular sentence.
The importance of the article is provided through the following:
  • Importance due to the parties involved. Nintendo which is an extremely influential video game company with net sales of 1.2 trillion yen.https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2019/190425e.pdf Atlus is a company which has existed for over 33 years.
    • Importance through the number of occurrences. It is not usual practice for publishers to dedicate entire articles for an apology. Please provide a comprehensive list of video game apology pieces from a single publisher as counter proof.
      • Importance due to the reaction. As noted in the Kotaku article itself:

We would like to apologise to Atlus, Nintendo, and the many Persona fans who were angry about this piece. It looks like we got it wrong. We screwed up: sorry.

— https://www.kotaku.co.uk/2019/04/19/we-screwed-up-with-that-persona-lyric
Clearly many felt this was important as the Kotaku article refers to numerous fans and that they felt strongly about the original article.
If you can provide objective, fact-driven counter points. Then yes, Kotaku's own article should not be included on their wikipedia page. Otherwise the objections are purely subjective and unmerited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metrotitan (talk • contribs)
A common and valid way of deciding whether or not any content is added to Wikipedia is whether or not third party reliable sources cover the content in articles they write. That’s why we keep bringing it up. And so far, objectively, not a single website classified as reliable at WP:VG/S has covered this incident. That’s an objective reason to leave it out. (And the comment about you sounding angry was not meant as an attack on you - the point was that your prose suggestions have not read like professional, neutral, encyclopedia writing, but rather, very informal and angry sounding. It doesn’t read like you’re able to separate your personal feelings from writing a neutral sounding encyclopedia entry.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kotaku is listed as a reliable source and the reference to be used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources https://www.kotaku.co.uk/2019/04/19/we-screwed-up-with-that-persona-lyric. Wikipedia commonly uses 1st party content especially if it is deemed reliable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources
If the language is objectionable then perhaps "Kotaku UK incorrectly claimed Nintendo and Atlus of using a song in Super Smash Bros Ultimate from Persona 5 of having lyrics with the term “retarded”. Atlus informed Nintendo this was false, and Nintendo informed Kotaku UK, who issued an and apology."
If the statement needs reworking, that's fine. Please suggest a suitable alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metrotitan (talk • contribs) 21:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read policy more closely, especially WP:PRIMARY. Yes, 1st party sources are usable, but in a limited manner - for basic facts. They cannot be used to “analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize“ information. Claims of “importance” or “impact” would violate this. You need third party source(s) to prove such a claim. Sergecross73 msg me 21:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the statement "Kotaku UK incorrectly claimed Nintendo and Atlus of using a song in Super Smash Bros Ultimate from Persona 5 of having lyrics with the term “retarded”. Atlus informed Nintendo this was false, and Nintendo informed Kotaku UK, who issued an and apology." is just a description of past events. There is no analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. Willing to rewrite the statement to be as factual as possible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Metrotitan (talk • contribs) 18:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those statements don't match the source though. Kotaku asked Nintendo to confirm, who asked Atlus, and then Kotaku made a retraction and apology. Reversing this as you have gives the false impression that Atlus acted first, telling Nintendo about it, who then told Kotaku they made a mistake. Either way, nothing has changed during this discussion. No one else has covered it, it's gotten no other attention from other sources, etc. Still just a blip in the site's history, and unimportant in the long run. -- ferret (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There’s no way around it - you need third party coverage to indicate importance. Kotaku can not dictate the importance of Kotaku. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrase to "Kotaku UK incorrectly claimed Nintendo and Atlus of using a song in Super Smash Bros Ultimate from Persona 5 of having lyrics with the term “retarded”. Kotaku asked Nintendo to confirm, who asked Atlus, and then Kotaku made a retraction and apology."
As stated before there are three points that denote the importance. Please provide substantiated counterpoints to each of the previous three points.
If importance was such a large factor, then why have the line in Kotaku's wikipedia article "Its name comes from the Japanese otaku (obsessive fan) and the prefix "ko-" (small in size).[11]"? The reference itself is from Gawker media. Thus the arguments for lines of importance, seem highly inconsistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metrotitan (talk • contribs)
Look, we already told you that's not how you prove something is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Find third party coverage. You're not going to convince anyone with the same flawed logic above. When content is challenged, you need a WP:CONSENSUS in your favor to include it. They way to do that is showing that third party sources found it important enough to report on. What the JP WIkipedia article does has no bearing on this situation, its completely irrelevant. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the points made. If importance and third party references are such large factors, then why have the line in Kotaku's wikipedia article "Its name comes from the Japanese otaku (obsessive fan) and the prefix "ko-" (small in size).[11]"? The reference itself is from Gawker media. Thus the arguments for lines of importance, seem highly inconsistent.Metrotitan (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please actually read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you did, and understood it correctly, you’d know why your randomly selected example means nothing here. Why would the fact that you observed something on a different article somehow automatically be a reason to allow it here? If someone randomly wrote the word “poop” at the end of the Japanese Kotaku article, would that justify writing it here too? Of course not. All you’ve done is identified another potential problem. If no third party sourcing covered that content on the JP Wikipedia, and no one can find any, then it could mean that should be removed as well. Identifying an error doesn’t justify implementing another error. Sergecross73 msg me 19:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Is for use in arguments for in the case of consistency. Why resort to such crude examples as human waste, it is very distasteful. Let's put this to bed; find the exact wordings which say that only 3rd party references are valid and 1st party are not.Metrotitan (talk)

Look, I'm done arguing with you. The problem is that you fundamentally don't understand policy or how the website works. There's a reason not a single person has supported you over the course of the last month or so. You are incorrect in this situation. Furthermore, please read WP:NOCONSENSUS. If you don't have a consensus supporting your edit, the change isn't made. Unless you can muster up a persuasive argument, your addition is not to be in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to answer many of the points and use the Argumentum ad populum fallacy which is why you are unable to continue. If you were honest in your intent you would have deleted the line "Its name comes from the Japanese otaku (obsessive fan) and the prefix "ko-" (small in size).[11]" when it was first brought to your attention. Tellingly you have notMetrotitan (talk)
Covering the origin of the name has an encyclopedic value to the topic. Covering one article retraction does not. WP:DROPTHESTICK. -- ferret (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One final recap, since you've conveniently forgotten many points already made above:
  1. I've already explained to you why third party sourcing is necessary to illustrate something such as importance. WP:PRIMARY. We don't use first party sources to make subjective claims such as proving whether or not something is important. Its not about sourcing the content, its about proving that it was a notable occurrence. It's the same premise as is found in Wikipedia's standard for whether or not something is notable enough to have its own article.
  2. WP:UNDUE Kotaku has existed for almost 15 years. This occurrence took place over the course of a couple days. It only affected only one of its multiple branches (UK). And not a single major reliable video game or tech website covered it - only obscure, no-name bloggers. And it disappeared from headlines days later. And yet you want to devote a an entire subsection of the article about it? That's an UNDUE violation.
  3. If you truly believe that the meaning of the website's name is not of importance, you're technically free to remove that content - no one has objected or undone your edits on this point so far. That said, unless you've got a better explanation, you're likely to be reverted and accused of a WP:POINT violation as well. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming blog vs Activist blog

It’s generally considered a video game website. An IP keeps making this change without a source or consensus. Is there one? And even if there is, I don’t believe “activism” is a more prominent label over “video games”. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; needs substantiation with a source, and I'm not sure where it's coming from. It's gone from one IP to three making this same edit, and none are engaging on this talk page, so I've requested semi-protection on the article. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially a repeat offender, they've been at it for a while on other pages. Several of the IPs blocked but since they hop so much I've just protected the pages. It's clearly one individual, there's specific ranges involved. -- ferret (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Your "friend" from earlier this month at slut-shaming. -- ferret (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Someone really needs to talk to someone. Thanks ferret. Wait: a ferret and a hamster on the same talk page? Sergecross needs to consider a name change. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh...

Is anyone gonna talk about how they were involved in Club Penguin Island's shutdown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3A20:25B0:F184:A0BD:AA99:EF9E (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know what you’re referring to. Can you provide the content you think should be added, along with the reliable sources that back it up? Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I can can find is that Kotaku covered the shutdown when a letter sent from Disney HQ To Disney Canada informing them of the shutdown was leaked to Kotaku. If that’s all there is it not worth mentioning here.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency?

I know nothing really about this and just happened across this article, but the statement "Kotaku was first launched in October 2004 with Matthew Gallant as its lead writer, with an intended target audience of young men. About a month later, Brian Crecente was brought in to try to save the failing site" doesn't seem to fit with the infobox saying it was "created by Brian Crecente"; furthermore, Crecente's article states he was the "founder" of Kotaku. Which of the two scenarios is correct? 78.144.64.62 (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kotaku&oldid=981904023"