Talk:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Fandom date
In the Observer article, it points out that the amount of fans on 4chan in late 2010 was so large that they had to ban pony posts on the site, which is when the fandom spread to other sites. As such, the fandom started in 2010, even though its critical mass was probably in late 2011 to mid 2012.
Also, this is non-standard infobox that I don't think we need. Trekkies or Browncoat doesn't have one, and I don't think this needs one either. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- And to add, while this can't be sourced to an RS, its easy to check that the term "brony" came into use by 4chan in October 2010. The fandom just wasn't covered in RS until 2011, but that doesn't mean it started then. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- And if you are going to go by websites Ponychan, created in late 2010 (after the 4chan exodus) predated EQD. So again, 2010 is the correct start date for the fandom. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- "At some point in the fall of 2010, a 4chan moderator decided to take matters into his or her own hands." — It doesn't say that fandom appeared in 2010. "2010 is the correct start date for the fandom." — Please provide the source. See WP:NOR and WP:RELIABLE. With love and best regards, Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- There might not be a reliable source for 2010, but neither is there any that it is not 2010. The current way is 100% OR. Therefor, the sate should be removed from the infobox, or better, that selfmade box be removed entirely. The way the article handled it until yesterday was completely okay, the box is not needed. Gial Ackbar (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Violating WP:NOR. Consensus has not been reached. Sources prove that the fandom was in 2011. You have other sources? Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- I do not have sourced that prove it was founded in 2010. But neither do your sources prove it was founded in 2011, they only prove it existed in 2011 and was therefor founded 2011 or earlier. Claiming it was founded 2011 is as much OR as 2010. From the given sourced we only know it was 2010 or 2011. Gial Ackbar (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Because there is no mention of bronies in 2010. As proof I took the first mention in the media/BronyCon 2011/Equestria Daily. It's elementary, my dear Gial Ackbar. I can write if you want: "2011 (first mention)". Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Absence of proof is not proof of absence. First mentioned in 2011 would also not be okay as only the first source known to us is from 2011. But it is impossible to proof that there is no older source we just don’t know about. Gial Ackbar (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- "But it is impossible to proof that there is no older source we just don’t know about." — Look for the source. I'm looking for. Good luck. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- The fandom had to exist before the media reported on it - the media did not create it. So while 2011 is the earliest mention, the fandom existed before that. And most sources point to the opinion piece from CartoonBrew in October 2010 as the piece that launched the fandom ("It’s hard to identify a Patient Zero in the pony fandom of 4chan, but Mr. Tanaka remembers an article posted in October 2010 on the /co/ board titled “The End of the Creator-Driven Era in TV Animation.” per the obverser source). This is why trying to ascribe a starting date is hard. It's somewhere between 2010 and 2011, but it's not exclusively 2011, since there are no sources to support that statement - they only acknowledge that it existed at 2011. Also, you have violated 3RR by forcing this point, which technically you should be blocked for. --MASEM (t) 01:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in your original research. "in October 2010 as the piece that launched the fandom" — Construction began on the fandom, but not his time of occurrence. Date of air of the animated series is not the time of occurrence of the fandom. In 2010 there was no fan fictions, no fan animations, and so on. See Fan activities. "Also, you have violated 3RR by forcing this point, which technically you should be blocked for." — But what about Gial Ackbar? I just removed the original research by Gial Ackbar. The dispute should be resolved on the discussion page. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's original research to say "there was no reported fan site, fan convention, or fan fiction in 2010, so the fandom couldn't have existed then". These things usually require a fan base to exist before they come into being, so before their confirmed existence in 2011, there had to be fans. Whether that is 2010 or 2011 is unclear, but it is absolutely wrong to say it is strictly 2011. I was there, I know there were fans before 2011 and the articles all point to shortly after the show and articles written about it that the older fanbase came about. But because its difficult to accurately document that, I would agree that the start date is ambigously between 2010 and 2011. That said, this goes back to the unnecessary need to have the infobox for this, and the insistence that the date has to be tied to when the media reported on it, not what actually happened. You're breaking 3rr since you've reverted; Gial only did one reversion, so that's fine. You need to gain consensus before we can use this infobox. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- "It's original research to say "there was no reported fan site, fan convention, or fan fiction in 2010, so the fandom couldn't have existed then" — This is not original research. This corresponds with Fan activities. There is no confirmation about the existence of the fandom in 2010. "I know there were fans before 2011" — What makes you think that this is the beginning of the origin of the fandom? Know what the difference is between us? You base your opinion, and I rely on the sources. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- First, I disagree that there's no confirmation that the fandom existed in 2010, as all sources that talk about 4chan kicking out the pony threads and causing them to congregate on other sites all date that in 2010. But even ignoring that, the lack of any coverage of 2010 events does not mean no events in 2010 occurred, its just that there was no interest by the press at the time. And I know this because I watched this happen. The fandom grew a few weeks after the show premiered thanks to that Cartoon Brew article. That's well documented, even if these sources don't make it explicit. Also, [1] affirms 2010 for fan meetups. It's not original research. --MASEM (t) 05:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry for not writing yesterday, I had important real life stuff to do. To topic: I 100% agree with Masem. There is no consensus here for putting in 2011 as staring date, or putting in that infobox at all. Therefor I recommend to remove the infobox and let the text explain everything just like it was before the box was put in. Gial Ackbar (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Okay guys. All of us were tired. I will write "2010—2011". Do you agree? Or remove the infobox? Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'd prefere removing the infobox, but would be fine with 2010—2011, too. Gial Ackbar (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Remove the infobox. No other fandom article has one, so its very much non-standard. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Removed. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Okay guys. All of us were tired. I will write "2010—2011". Do you agree? Or remove the infobox? Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry for not writing yesterday, I had important real life stuff to do. To topic: I 100% agree with Masem. There is no consensus here for putting in 2011 as staring date, or putting in that infobox at all. Therefor I recommend to remove the infobox and let the text explain everything just like it was before the box was put in. Gial Ackbar (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- First, I disagree that there's no confirmation that the fandom existed in 2010, as all sources that talk about 4chan kicking out the pony threads and causing them to congregate on other sites all date that in 2010. But even ignoring that, the lack of any coverage of 2010 events does not mean no events in 2010 occurred, its just that there was no interest by the press at the time. And I know this because I watched this happen. The fandom grew a few weeks after the show premiered thanks to that Cartoon Brew article. That's well documented, even if these sources don't make it explicit. Also, [1] affirms 2010 for fan meetups. It's not original research. --MASEM (t) 05:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- "It's original research to say "there was no reported fan site, fan convention, or fan fiction in 2010, so the fandom couldn't have existed then" — This is not original research. This corresponds with Fan activities. There is no confirmation about the existence of the fandom in 2010. "I know there were fans before 2011" — What makes you think that this is the beginning of the origin of the fandom? Know what the difference is between us? You base your opinion, and I rely on the sources. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's original research to say "there was no reported fan site, fan convention, or fan fiction in 2010, so the fandom couldn't have existed then". These things usually require a fan base to exist before they come into being, so before their confirmed existence in 2011, there had to be fans. Whether that is 2010 or 2011 is unclear, but it is absolutely wrong to say it is strictly 2011. I was there, I know there were fans before 2011 and the articles all point to shortly after the show and articles written about it that the older fanbase came about. But because its difficult to accurately document that, I would agree that the start date is ambigously between 2010 and 2011. That said, this goes back to the unnecessary need to have the infobox for this, and the insistence that the date has to be tied to when the media reported on it, not what actually happened. You're breaking 3rr since you've reverted; Gial only did one reversion, so that's fine. You need to gain consensus before we can use this infobox. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in your original research. "in October 2010 as the piece that launched the fandom" — Construction began on the fandom, but not his time of occurrence. Date of air of the animated series is not the time of occurrence of the fandom. In 2010 there was no fan fictions, no fan animations, and so on. See Fan activities. "Also, you have violated 3RR by forcing this point, which technically you should be blocked for." — But what about Gial Ackbar? I just removed the original research by Gial Ackbar. The dispute should be resolved on the discussion page. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- The fandom had to exist before the media reported on it - the media did not create it. So while 2011 is the earliest mention, the fandom existed before that. And most sources point to the opinion piece from CartoonBrew in October 2010 as the piece that launched the fandom ("It’s hard to identify a Patient Zero in the pony fandom of 4chan, but Mr. Tanaka remembers an article posted in October 2010 on the /co/ board titled “The End of the Creator-Driven Era in TV Animation.” per the obverser source). This is why trying to ascribe a starting date is hard. It's somewhere between 2010 and 2011, but it's not exclusively 2011, since there are no sources to support that statement - they only acknowledge that it existed at 2011. Also, you have violated 3RR by forcing this point, which technically you should be blocked for. --MASEM (t) 01:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- "But it is impossible to proof that there is no older source we just don’t know about." — Look for the source. I'm looking for. Good luck. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Absence of proof is not proof of absence. First mentioned in 2011 would also not be okay as only the first source known to us is from 2011. But it is impossible to proof that there is no older source we just don’t know about. Gial Ackbar (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Because there is no mention of bronies in 2010. As proof I took the first mention in the media/BronyCon 2011/Equestria Daily. It's elementary, my dear Gial Ackbar. I can write if you want: "2011 (first mention)". Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- I do not have sourced that prove it was founded in 2010. But neither do your sources prove it was founded in 2011, they only prove it existed in 2011 and was therefor founded 2011 or earlier. Claiming it was founded 2011 is as much OR as 2010. From the given sourced we only know it was 2010 or 2011. Gial Ackbar (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Violating WP:NOR. Consensus has not been reached. Sources prove that the fandom was in 2011. You have other sources? Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- There might not be a reliable source for 2010, but neither is there any that it is not 2010. The current way is 100% OR. Therefor, the sate should be removed from the infobox, or better, that selfmade box be removed entirely. The way the article handled it until yesterday was completely okay, the box is not needed. Gial Ackbar (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- "At some point in the fall of 2010, a 4chan moderator decided to take matters into his or her own hands." — It doesn't say that fandom appeared in 2010. "2010 is the correct start date for the fandom." — Please provide the source. See WP:NOR and WP:RELIABLE. With love and best regards, Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
"Famous fans" section
Most of the entries in the "famous fans" section rely on primary sources or fan blogs. It's a non-encyclopedic example farm and should be trimmed to examples with secondary sources that are not fan blogs. Furry-friend (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. trim down to those that are noteable by third party sources. Gial Ackbar (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Another issue is automatically categorizing guests stars as bronies. This isn't a list of "anybody who's ever worked or expressed some interest in My Little Pony." The inclusion criteria should be fans who got reliable source coverage for being fans, like Andrew WK. Furry-friend (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Hank Green wrote an entire song about choosing his favorite pony and can be seen wearing a Brony shirt in this picture: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Hank_Green_speaking_at_VidCon_2012_in_Anaheim%2C_California.jpg/2560px-Hank_Green_speaking_at_VidCon_2012_in_Anaheim%2C_California.jpg Would that be considered relevant enough to add?Gagaluv1 (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Needs third party reference to be notable. Gial Ackbar (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Equestria Daily
I've noticed that since I last edited this article in March 2016, that all references sighting Equestria Daily have been removed from this article. Why? I checked the archive at WP:RSN and most discussions have lead to the conclusion that it meets requirements set forth at WP:IRS. So its removal, while not debilitating to this article, may have been unnecessary.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Billy Bob Thorton
GQ interview. I am not 100% sure if that's enough for include. Also we probably can include Weird Al too (check Pinkie Pride for references). --MASEM (t) 15:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be better to create List of notable My Little Pony fans, that way the threshold for inclusion would simply be notability and verifiability, and everybody can have their hundreds-of-members-long list without overwhelming the main article. Furry-friend (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150315004435/http://bronycon.org/about/convention-history/ to http://bronycon.org/about/convention-history/
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.emetro.pl/emetro/1%2C85652%2C11098458%2CKochamy_pony__sa_nas_miliony.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Vancouver%20rock%20band%20Ocean%20plays%20their%20with%20video/6607126/story.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120718014907/http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/07/15/my-little-pony-friendship-is-magic-interview-sdcc-2012 to http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/07/15/my-little-pony-friendship-is-magic-interview-sdcc-2012/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301182732/http://gawker.com/5889084/bronies-furious-after-minor-my-little-pony-character-is-changed-to-seem-less-mentally-disabled to http://gawker.com/5889084/bronies-furious-after-minor-my-little-pony-character-is-changed-to-seem-less-mentally-disabled
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219121102/http://gawker.com/5871969/hasbro-crushes-dreams-of-grown-men-who-love-my-little-pony to http://gawker.com/5871969/hasbro-crushes-dreams-of-grown-men-who-love-my-little-pony
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110804051912/http://arts.nationalpost.com/2011/08/03/all-ages-show-hipsters-love-childrens-programming/ to http://arts.nationalpost.com/2011/08/03/all-ages-show-hipsters-love-childrens-programming/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121214827/http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/artslife/story.html?id=b2b0b826-3b6f-4086-ad35-389837077c1c to http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/artslife/story.html?id=b2b0b826-3b6f-4086-ad35-389837077c1c
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140104213013/https://www.sos.nh.gov/corporate/soskb/Corp.asp?1153396 to https://www.sos.nh.gov/corporate/soskb/Corp.asp?1153396
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120506015801/http://gameland.ru/magstorage/si/324/si_324.pdf to http://www.gameland.ru/magstorage/si/324/si_324.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021070212/http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/05/21/voicing-pony-magic to http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/05/21/voicing-pony-magic
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120908024453/http://www.papermag.com/arts_and_style/2012/08/bronies.php to http://www.papermag.com/arts_and_style/2012/08/bronies.php
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140614030957/http://www.playbill.com/multimedia/video/5942/Lena-Halls-Two-Big-Influences-Marlon-Brando-and-My-Little-Pony to http://www.playbill.com/multimedia/video/5942/Lena-Halls-Two-Big-Influences-Marlon-Brando-and-My-Little-Pony
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Two problems:
- The National Post archive was not valid, with the Wayback Machine stating, "This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine." However, I managed to find a new, live URL. Plus it seems like the Ottawa Citizen article is just a republication of the Post piece anyway.
- The Playbill archive doesn't seem to be very useful. Is the Flash-based video working for anyone? In any case, I found a live URL.
- Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140104032437/http://www.tvland.com/video-clips/63913/hot-in-cleveland-elevator-and-bronies to http://www.tvland.com/video-clips/63913/hot-in-cleveland-elevator-and-bronies
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
"Soft decline" heading
Since apparently my edit summaries apparently didn't save, let's do this.
Chad The Goatman inserted a new section header titled "Soft Decline" here. I reverted the change, and I'll admit to omitting an edit summary on that one. I was reverted with a rather lengthy statement that was Chad's own interpretation of the source as justification for the section header.
I will admit, at this point I probably should've brought it here, but I felt that this was simple: for one thing, there's no need to insert a separate section header for a single paragraph; and for another, it's WP:SYNTH to take the articles given and declare them part of a "soft decline" in the fandom, when the sources draw no such conclusion. I reverted and I thought I had an ES saying as much. Apparently, I either put it in the wrong field (I hate these new editors) or it didn't save. I was reverted once again by Chad with another rather lengthy ES from them stating once again that their interpretation of the sources justified it.
So, here we are. My argument is that this single paragraph doesn't need it's own subheading, and that the provided subheading is novel synthesis not given in the sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Breitbart source
I removed the statement "Kurt Schlichter of BigHollywood.com called the phenomenon a "terrifying new trend", and wrote, "Hollywood, do you really need to enable the creepy immaturity of these geebos? No. It's time to stop the insanity."
which was sourced to [www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/04/25/my-little-pony/ Breitbart]. My rationale is that although Breitbart may be an acceptable source for opinion in certain cases, WP:DUE requires that we give weight to a viewpoint based on its prominence in reliable sources. If this is indeed a prominent viewpoint, than we should cite the reliable source that covers it. –dlthewave ☎ 15:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- There is definitely coverage of opinions beyond BB that they find the brony fandom "creepy". If BB was the only source for that, I would agree to remove it, but the negative opinion of the fandom is not isolated to that. We have Fox News as well as National Review making comments in the same tone, so it's not unreasonable to include BB here. --Masem (t) 15:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Fox News and National Review are not deprecated sources, and they do not use language like "creepy" or "terrifying". –dlthewave ☎ 16:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- "Creepy" is my word to describe the attitudes that question the older fandom, to broadly classify these. And Breitbart is only deprecated for use as fact, not for RSOPINION. --Masem (t) 16:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- User:Masem you also reverted my removal. So if you want to keep this per RSOPINION you have to provide some reasoning as to why this Breitbart columnist's opinion is important on this matter. Please do so. I am reverting again for now until you gain consensus that this is so. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- It's an example from an RSOPINION of how conservative viewpoints negatively saw the fandom. While we have two other sources for that already there is nothing inherently wrong or against the recent decision to deprecate Breitbart for sourcing facts that this violates. It's not essential to keep, but removing it citing the Breitbart discussion is against what that discussion was closed as. As WP:RSP says "It can still be used as a source when attributing opinion/viewpoint/commentary.", which is exactly what its use is here. --Masem (t) 16:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- User:Masem you also reverted my removal. So if you want to keep this per RSOPINION you have to provide some reasoning as to why this Breitbart columnist's opinion is important on this matter. Please do so. I am reverting again for now until you gain consensus that this is so. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- "Creepy" is my word to describe the attitudes that question the older fandom, to broadly classify these. And Breitbart is only deprecated for use as fact, not for RSOPINION. --Masem (t) 16:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Fox News and National Review are not deprecated sources, and they do not use language like "creepy" or "terrifying". –dlthewave ☎ 16:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Baltimore City Paper source
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.
I believe that the 2014 Baltimore City Paper source (https://www.baltimoresun.com/citypaper/bcp-the-problem-with-bronies-20140801-story.html) is not WP:Reliable as it is too polemical and does not contain a neutral point of view and thus should be removed from this article. The quote from this source as used in the lead section of this article is cherrypicked. With an incipit like "Dudes ruin everything", flagrant use of profanity and other rhetoric such as "Bronies appropriate the oppression of real-life actual people to burden themselves with a victim complex that they believe makes them immune to criticism", the source is more appropriate for Encyclopedia Dramatica than Wikipedia as Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Although it does bring up the aspect of pornography created by this article's subject, it also blows it out of proportion and pushes a pov that hypocritically overemphasizes an unavoidable facet of any internet fandom (i.e. Rule 34) and deemphasizes how significant levels of internet pornographic fan art exists in virtually all media fandoms such as in anime and manga, Disney, Marvel and DC Comics and others. The pornography section of this article even addresses that with the line "Fans acknowledge that such material is generated by a subset of the group, but consider it "an unavoidable part of any online fandom", as described by TV Guide's Sadie Gennis, and do not worry about this facet.[38]" This source therefore contradicts the rest of the article. Furthermore, the Baltimore City Paper, on which the source was originally published, was an alternative newspaper which significantly undermines its standing as being a reliable source. DeathTrain (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, sorry about the revert. Johnnyconnorabc (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Clop
Hi, I've made an article on Clop (pornography). It's just a stub but I've dug up enough reliable sources to firmly establish its notability, I believe. I would appreciate some help in fleshing it out.Thisisarealusername (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thisisarealusername I expanded it a bit after the AfD. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 13:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)