Talk:Charlie Charlie challenge

Untitled
The writer of the section is showing strong bias in multiple ways. Firstly he labels the referenced media outlets as "tabloid" (an attempt to undermine their credibility), then describes the cited articles as "trying to create a moral panic" (suggesting irrational or unethical desires), and calls their intended audience "credulous" (implying that only easily-deceived readers would agree with the articles' viewpoints). He also includes Pat Robertson in this list with the same term (moral panic), even though the cited article with this keyword in its title does not mention him. It seems that the writer of the article has strong bias against those who express concerns about the Charlie Charlie Challenge, and holds a specific bias against Mr Robertson himself.

The fact that certain individuals, psychologists and newspapers have expressed concern about the Charlie Charlie Challenge is important to include in this article, but the wording should be changed to be more neutral.

My suggestion: "Various tabloid media outlets and psychologists have expressed concern about the challenge, that it may produce potentially harmful consequences of a psychological or spiritual nature on its participants. The most outspoken groups are of a religious background, for example evangelical Christian speakers such as Pat Robertson, who denounced the Charlie Charlie challenge as 'demonic'." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.82.86 (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The term "moral panic" appears to be original research here and should be deleted. I also agree that "credulous" is POV. So the article does need a couple of changes. I'm not keen on your alternative text though as apart from anything else it doesn't accurately reflect the article sources. Gatoclass (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - the section has been changed to the following: "Author Joseph Laycock says that people have often promoted a moral panic over tabletop games like Dungeons and Dragons. David Emery argues parsimoniously that when simple scientific explanations "can sufficiently explain why a phenomenon occurs, there's no reason to assume supernatural forces are at work." Despite simple scientific explanations being offered by science journalists, many tabloid media outlets have run alarmist stories promoting the game as causing supernatural danger.     Kate Knibbs writes that "once the paranormal fad went viral, it didn’t take long for Christian fearmongers to warn against calling on the nefarious spirit world." Pat Robertson, who blamed the 2010 Haiti earthquake on a deal with the Devil during the 1791 Haitian rebellion,  denounced the Charlie Charlie challenge as demonic. Various exorcists have promoted the idea that the game causes spirit possession, along with Muslims in Jamaica and the UAE."


 * I believe this meets WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Please feel free to propose changes. Given the changes to the section, I've removed the POV tag for now, unless someone wants to re-add it if they have issues with the paragraph. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see that "many tabloid journals have run alarmist stories" - the periodicals cited have not IMO "run alarmist stories" they have just reported the story and what some people have said about it. The Catholic Church also appears to have taken the alleged dangers seriously, as it was reported by the Catholic News Agency and a Catholic priest also warned against the practice. Additionally, the mention of Laycock comments about an entirely different game is WP:SYNTH. Gatoclass (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the mail ref I've changed to "mysterious" injuries - that's what the original Dominican Republic tabloid television newscast claimed. The Washington Post ref describes the Dominican Republic newscast as alarmist - note that they only interviewed "concerned" priests and parents without explaining how bruises could be invented, or a cover story for bullying, or Munchausen syndrome.


 * On the issue of synth - Faith and Freedom (a Christian right blog links the two saying "Dungeons and Dragons has created an entire sub-culture around the so-called "board game.") The link is also made by Hemant Mehta (blog) and picked up by another patheos blogger (here). To reduce synth I'll include a comment on Ouija (vox ref)


 * Note that one of the most popular videos on youtube about this says "that whole thing was fake, we had a straw" - suggesting that many others are faking videos for views, getting people to comment "let us know in the comments if you think it's real or not" in order to maximise engagement (profit).


 * just to understand where I'm coming from, As a sidenote, many of the articles are clickbait, having 1: churnalism without fact checking, 2: sensationalised headlines for more page views, 3: journalists ending the article with "tell us which side you're on in the comment section" without explaining their own position (to maximise revenue from comments). One churnalism article asked "Are you totally, irredeemably haunted after reaching out to Charlie? We'd like to hear from you as soon as possible." 1, another asked "have you tried the Charlie Charlie challenge? Do you think it’s stupid or totally scary? Let us know!" 2 One listicle in the Telegraph just embedded 8 tweets and then added a reader poll with no effort or fact checking. -- Aronzak (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you are trying to present your own POV rather than just sticking to what the sources say. First, I think you used the term "moral panic" but there was apparently no source for that. Now you are saying "many tabloid journals are running alarmist stories" and using the fact that you've found articles asking readers what they think. But that is your interpretation of those stories. To meet policy, you have to have a reliable source which specifically states that "many" sites have run alarmist stories, and you haven't done that. What you apparently have is one paper criticizing the coverage of one other paper but that doesn't equate to "many". So unless you have a source to back that claim up, it shouldn't be in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've refactored my comment above to point out the sidenote. Let me restate the issue - in the Carribian (which the Mail says has high rates of religious and spiritual belief) there are pastors being brought into schools to warn people, and news outlets not offering scientific explanations - see Jamacia observer Caribbean 360 Caribbean News Service NationNews - Janine Mendes-Franco quotes Barbados Underground saying that bringing pastors into schools seems to be an over-reaction, and shares the frustration that "many Caribbean netizens bought into the hype" and the Caribbean is going "a bit crazy" - the Barbados Underground blog says that there are "few sensible individuals" not buying into the "demonic forces" angle. This is happening in Fiji, the government is offering a crackdown on unsupervised children (Fiji Sun Fiji Broadcasting Corporation Fijione Sun online editorial ksun online). The Washington Post (a highly respected paper) describing the Dominican Republic newscast as alarmist is appropriate. Other than the Janine Mendes-Franco/Barbados Underground article - I haven't seen any skeptical scientific treatment of the issue by Carribian news outlets.


 * Note, the Racket report is a satire site - the site satirically claimed that 500 people died (IBTimes reports the debunking) - however, the racket report is used as a source in this Fiji Sun article. I believe there should be strong coverage of the scientific angle when the media in the Carribian and Fiji appears to lack much scientific discussion. I believe that Wikipedia readers in the Carribian and Fiji may find the article's discussion of science an antidote to low levels of scientific coverage locally. I personally believe the term moral panic does not apply to Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic countries today - but it has been used appropriately to describe the Dungeons and Dragons issue in the 90's. I believe the term moral panic does apply in countries where the education ministry is sending police into schools to arrest teachers - I'll add this in and try to help settle POV concerns. -- Aronzak (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe the term moral panic does apply - again, Aronzak, it doesn't matter what you believe. What matters is what reliable sources said. If you don't have a reliable source stating that the game has sparked a moral panic, you shouldn't make the claim. Gatoclass (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I might do some editing of the article myself, because something tells me I won't see the changes I think are necessary otherwise. Gatoclass (talk) 04:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I've had a go at removing all the unrelated and unreliable rubbish. And I haven't even verified the reliably sourced content!--JacktheHarry (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Did someone revert your edit? Aside from the slight bias still in the text, this article reads like it was written by Google translate. It's a grammatical mess. Was the original author ESL? Philip72 (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hydrick
Two blogs (Patheos and Skepchick - Rebecca Watson) link the two pencil game to the one pencil hoax by James Hydrick, debunked in 1981.

Hydrick's claim to be able to move a pencil on a desk by telekenisis (he blew on it) is the same fundamental physical claim as moving a pencil on a desk by blowing on it, and claiming that a demon is moving the pencil.

"Fred Clark and Rebecca Watson liken the phenomenon of pencils moving on a desk to James Hydrick's debunked claim that he could move a pencil on a desk by psychokinesis"

Anything wrong with that sentence sources? -- Aronzak (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, what authority do these two bloggers have on this subject, that their opinion of comparing it to another subject matters? None by the looks of it.--JacktheHarry (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Watson herself has a bachelor's degree in science communication and meets GNG for an article on her. I can take this to RSN if contested. This isn't a BLP page and I'd say the claim is not a WP:CONTROVERSY issue. -- Aronzak (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Origin
I'm from Spain and I have never heard about this game. It was created probably in South America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkingonby (talk • contribs) 05:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As something extra to add to this comment, I remember this game being played in high school in Australia in the 1980s, decades before it was featured on the internet.
 * I don't know it's origins and it wasn't called Charlie Charlie or any version of that name but it was moderately well known. BruceOz (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

revert to version before the vandalism
or other autoconfirmed users: Please revert to the version before the vandalism: thx ー&#xFEFF;Œ̷͠²ð·¨´´̢́̕͘³͏¯̞̗&#x202F;【discussion】 19:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Done  Enigma msg  19:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2017
nower days the chrlie charlie challange can be done with "Fidget Spinners" too pls edit it youtubers like "Prank Bro´s" or "Moe Sargi" have done it this way. 2001:A61:426D:D801:4195:265F:8ACA:E61C (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  13:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)