Talk:Blitzchung controversy

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Article title

[1] A quick note that I originally titled this article "Blitzchung affair" as preferable to "Blitzchung controversy" for neutrality purposes (Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies). This ordeal hadn't (hasn't?) been given a common name in the press and though sources did call it an "affair" less often than a "controversy", I made that original decision on balance with our neutrality policies. @Salvidrim! czar 17:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think I've really seen "affair" used in a way applicable to this kind of situation and I assume (perhaps wrongly) my initial confusion could occur in other readers as well, hence my preference for the more commonly-understood term "controversy" (connotation or not, this was plainly a controversy). Perhaps we should more straightforward with "Blitzchung ban" or "Reactions to Blitzchung ban"? I still think that the "controversy" is more notable for people's reactions towards Blizzard than for Blitzchung himself and as such we should err on the side of titling the article about Blizzard and not after Blitzchung, however I'm kind of on the fence so I haven't formulated a strong enough opinion for an RM (yet). As you say there does not seem to be a single agreed-upon overarching name for the whole thing used throughout media coverage. Perhaps "Blizzard ban of Blitzchung"? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Affair" is a common synonym for this sort of incident/ordeal (one example) and more neutral than its alternatives. "Blitzchung ban" > "Blizzard ban of Blitzchung" on concision/precision per the naming criteria, though agreed that the ban itself is less of the scope than the reaction to the ban. As for naming Blitzchung vs. Blizzard, sources universally identify this incident by Blitzchung's name. Fine to keep "controversy" now, I suppose, but not my preference. fwiw, my editorial spider senses predicts that either this will die out (more "Blizzard ban of Blitzchung" as about an incident and its fallout) or expand into something more generally on Blizzard's position on China/Hong Kong (which would be named something else). czar 19:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm also not sure if the standalone article really holds up to the future or if it will end up rolled up either in Blizzard, Blizzard controversies, or some sort of article about Chinese censorship in video gaming. FWIW when I read affair, the prime and almost only meaning that comes to mind is infidelity; there's a reason why the base title Affair is about that. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Yes, it's a nicer way of saying "scandal", especially when the event is more about the aftermath, not solely sexual. A few: Iran–Contra affair, Dreyfus affair, Haymarket affair, Bogdanov affair, Chesapeake–Leopard affair (currently on the main page!), SNC-Lavalin affair. Many more. czar 23:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you with certainty that the SNC article is titled "affair" as an indirect result of them being called "Affaire SNC-Lavalin" in the contextually native French (since "affaire" has broad and generic connotation in French, none of the sexual undertones); seems obvious the same applied to Bogdanov and Dreyfus which both come out of France. Don't know for sure about the rest, there's a political scandal (which is the closest to here I suppose), a riot/bombing, and a naval battle... Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 04:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you tell me if this image is valid as a fair use exception? Uprisingengineer (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blitzchung Photo Removed? Fair Use Justification?

Hi, I would like to request a fair use justification for the main image of Blitzchung that was here only several weeks ago. This is not an impossible thing. For instance, a manual on brainwashing people into joining a cult, here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brain-Washing_(book) , has a fair use image, but on this Blitzchung page, it seems like there is no fair use image of the most iconic shot of the event. Just google "blitzchung" to find this image, for instance, here, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/b5KgCNCjrRuncs6cjg6kWv3lLe8=/444x0:2987x1440/1200x800/filters:focal(2020x272:2570x822)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/65416350/msedge_myPnmFOxP7.0.jpg .

If fair use can be granted to documents released by a cult, I believe fair use can be granted to documents released by corporations who cooperate with governments who have questionable, Human Rights records. I am strictly interested in the free access of information, and I have not mentioned anything here about the Uighers. Is my request unacceptable? Uprisingengineer (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Blitzchung_controversy"