Talk:Banana (2024 video game)

The fact that this scam gets an article
Yet thousands of more notable topics don't means that Wikipedia is in on the scam. 92.40.204.213 (talk) 08:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't see how. Wikipedia having an article on a topic doesn't mean that it endorses the topic, merely that the topic is notable. While there have been discussions about its notability, a game with 800,000 concurrent players (whether through botting or otherwise) certainly seems notable, and a scam with 800,000 victims would definitely be notable IMO. F1Krazy (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Controversy section
@Tamzin I believe this section is warranted. Also, no importance is being given to the YouTuber's claims, the article is only stating that popular YouTubers have made such claims. The videos have millions of views and are probably the reason the news websites reference 'controversy', so they should be mentioned.  Jo e J Sh mo 💌 06:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @JoeJShmo: Please see WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. I have reïntegrated the text back into the article. Please also be wary of making stronger claims than are supported by sources. There's no need to editorialize with analysis like "significant controversy" when we can simply report dispassionately on the existence of the controversy, without giving it greater weight than needed. Because there are only a few developers, claims that the game is a scam fall under our rules for biographical content about living persons, so it is extra important to get things right on the first try, especially while this article is linked from the Main Page. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe) 06:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm aware the page is linked on the front page. I concede on the section point, and on the "significant" phrasing point. However, the web articles mention that the game has been accused of being a scam. So there no problem adding the factual statement that YouTubers have been a main source of the controversy for context. I'm tired of restoring my edits and heading to bed now, but I'd appreciate if you add that YouTube sentence back, with the sources. They have received millions of views and are clearly important enough to mention. An introductory sentence that the game has generated controversy is also necessary. Lastly, please add back the sentence I added to the lead. Thank you and goodnight.  Jo e J Sh mo 💌 07:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That sentence is still in the lede. I have no strong opinions either way on it. Maybe Generalissima does. The YouTube videos can be mentioned citing third-party coverage of their existence, if that coverage exists. They are not, on their own, adequate sources to establish that they should be mentioned. Wikipedia does not platform random people's allegations of crimes; we report on secondary sources' coverage thereof. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe) 07:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would've thought it obvious we don't need a third party source to mention a YouTube video when the video has millions of views. However, I concede I am relatively new to Wikipedia and am possibly making that amateurish mistake of putting simple logic before indiscriminately broad policy.  Jo e J Sh mo 💌 07:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, @JoeJShmo. Lots of Youtube videos get millions of views and these probably did too- but that's not really what Tamzin is talking about, is it? All xyr're is asking whether it's really appropriate for an individual on Wikipedia to unilaterally decide to start emphasizing the legal claims that celebrities make in Youtube videos. Most of the times, it's really not- especially when the celebrities start accusing somebody of a crime. Because that's what a scam is- a crime. And on Wikipedia, we have to be cognizant of the fact that our articles tend to be in the first few results when somebody googles something. If you were accused by a famous content creator of a crime- but had no chance to defend yourself in court, no chance to show that you'd grown from your mistakes, would you really like it if somebody kept trying to make sure your actions were depicted in the worst possible light on the internet for all your future employers, friends, romantic partners, ect, to see? Forever?
 * And, sometimes, it is appropriate to include allegations. For example, the Hbomberguy plagiarism video is mentioned in his Wikipedia article, and there is coverage of the claims he made against other Youtubers. However, the allegations are not present in the Angry Video Game Nerd or other articles- because no third-party individual sat down, looked at the claims, and decided they were worth writing about further. Cheating allegations is another common fact that gets included- when celebrity couples break up acrimoniously, the breakup itself will often be written about enough in third-party sources that the info finds its way to Wikipedia. However, even in these cases, the allegation is often only presented in the Wikipedia article of the individual who made the allegation. For example, the Jay-Z article only briefly mentions his marriage to Beyonce. In turn, her article only mentions his affair once- in fact, the only Wikipedia article which seems to discuss the issue in any great depth is Lemonade (album)- because it because impossible to divorce his actions from critical commentary about her work on that particular album. And Jay-Z's affair is mentioned in Youtube videos that got viewed hundreds of millions of times- and got a Beyonce song dedicated to it. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Quite the lengthy reply, I appreciate your response. However, I believe what is relevant here is that I do not propose any weight be given to their claims, only that the fact that 'popular youtubers made videos with the claim' was worthy of mention. It's also valuable to note that we have sources which mention the scam accusation multiple times, and we all agree the scam accusation should be mentioned in the article (it's already there), so no undue weight is given by mentioning the videos. As stated earlier, it is in fact entirely probable that the YouTube videos were the source of the controversy mentioned in the articles.  Jo e J Sh mo 💌 07:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't believe most readers jump to 'legally prosecutable crime' when they read 'scam', rather 'morally questionable activity'.  Jo e J Sh mo 💌 07:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)