Talk:PETA satirical browser games

History section
I made a few tweaks this morning listing PETA's first game as Revenge of the PETA Tomatoes and Lobster Liberation as suggested by the gameranx.com interview. And it's true that these were the first two developed specifically for PETA's main organization. But as the archive.org link shows, there were two other video games listed on the original games page that correspond to PETA side-projects. Investigations into these show that they predate RotPT and LL: I find next to no information on these games, but they evidently represent PETA's true firsts. If anyone finds any info on them then please update the article accordingly. -Thibbs (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Save the Chicks (early 2003) - Produced for PETA's anti-Kentucky-Fried-Chicken campaign (KFCCruelty.com)
 * Make Fred Spew (mid-2001) - Produced for PETA's anti-milk campaign (MilkSucks.com)
 * The thing is, I don't know if either of these has received secondary source coverage. So I can add mentions of them, but only for starting off the franchise or something, not in the list of games that have received media attention. Tezero (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's what I meant by "If anyone finds any info on them". RS info of course. I haven't seen any. In fact I'm really not sure I'd list Lobster Liberation and Revenge of the PETA Tomatoes as having "received press coverage" either. There's a few mentions in scholarly sources, and of course there's the interview which probably counts as a primary source, but none of that is really "press coverage." I do think it's important to list the actual historical origins rather than just saying "PETA's first game was released in 2007" or "PETA's first game was released in 2004" when in fact the first game was released in 2001, though. If no RS material can back up the actual release dates for the original games then I'd say just omit any claim of "first release." Better that than misleading readers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I've done. PETA's games being known has seemed like a gradual process. Tezero (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. The article still says "PETA's first venture into gaming came in 2004", though, and the evidence shows that it was actually in 2001. So if we can find (RS) info on either of the two previous games (Save the Chicks or Make Fred Spew) then I suggest we add it. Until then we might consider modifying it somehow to match the facts. So for instance we might say that "Lobster Liberation and Revenge of the PETA Tomatoes were the first games to have been created for the main PETA campaign  although previous PETA-created games were released for specific PETA campaigns in 2003 and 2001 ." Something like that. -Thibbs (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well I found 3 RS refs that cover Save the Chicks and Make Fred Spew. One covers StC, one covers MFS, and one covers both. The mentions are brief for the most part, but enough to show that these games did get some small non-gaming-community coverage. So I updated the history section and linked the Internet Archive captures of their earliest versions as well. If there is any further need for tweaking this section, please tweak away. -Thibbs (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

OK sorry to be annoying about this section, but I think it has implications for the "Titles" subsection that should be addressed. Under "Titles" we have a list of games "that have received press coverage". I take this to mean mainstream press coverage and not random blogs or academic sources. If so, then I suggest that we rename "Titles" to "Notable titles" and that we remove Lobster Liberation and Revenge of the PETA Tomatoes from the list so it starts with Super Chick Sisters - the first game to receive more mainstream press coverage. Does that sound good? -Thibbs (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK I just made the change. I think it makes the most sense this way: kind of like the "select discography" sections popular in WP:MUSICIAN articles. The history section covers the earlier less well-known games and if we later want to aim for completism then we can always add in all of the earlier games into the list and change the subsection from "notable titles" back to "titles". -Thibbs (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Tezero (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK
I wanted to mention that I'd nominated this for DYK about a week ago and it looks like it's been accepted now. Keep watching the front page. -Thibbs (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail is not a reliable source.
It is a British tabloid which has been decried as a reliable source many times. You should watch out. wirenote (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that in this case it's just a matter of providing attribution for an opinion statement. If it was a factual claim for which Daily Mail was being cited then that would fall on the wrong side of WP:RS, but I think the Daily Mail citation here may be ok per WP:RSOPINION. -Thibbs (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No exception exists in WP:RS for citing unreliable sources for their opinions; if there was, then every personal blog and website that expresses an opinion would be fair game to cite. Although unreliable sources can be used as sources about themselves, WP:SELFSOURCE forbids using unreliable sources to support "claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)" or to support "claims about events not directly related to the subject". –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not true; WP:VG/RS lists some sources that are only acceptable for opinions, like ScrewAttack. Nevertheless, I'm not gonna contest the Daily Mail if you really don't want it there. Tezero (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Video Games should have a discussion then, because those listings contradict what I just directly quoted from WP:SELFSOURCE, which is Wikipedia policy. But since Daily Mail has been removed, that's neither here nor there for this article. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the salient point here is that the rationale underlying WP:SELFSOURCE is exactly the reason that WP:RSOPINION represents part of the RS content guideline (and not an exception to it). A third party statement regarding its own opinion is reliable as a source of information about itself because its opinion is its own. That doesn't mean that any source can be used simply because it has an opinion, but the reason to exclude an opinion source doesn't rest on reliability because there can really be no reasonable doubt that a published opinion differs from the true opinion of the publishing source. If a source is unreliable for factual matters but it is a contextually notable source then it's fine to be cited in a due manner and along with inline attribution for its opinions anyway. -Thibbs (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how your reasoning that "the reason to exclude an opinion source doesn't rest on reliability" can be squared with WP:SELFSOURCE's explicit command not to use unreliable sources to support "claims about third parties" or "claims about events not directly related to the subject." If WP:SELFSOURCE was intended to allow editors to use unreliable sources for their opinions on other outside persons or events, then it wouldn't say the exact opposite. And nothing in WP:RSOPINION suggests that unreliable sources may be used for their opinions of third parties or outside events. WP:RSOPINION does state that biased sources that have in-text attributions can be reliable, and that bias itself is not a reason to discount a source's reliability. But it doesn't say that the general reliability criteria for sources (reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, etc.) vanish when a source is used to support a statement of opinion. And according to WP:BIASED: "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

OK I think I understand your confusion. A published opinion does not represent a "claim about third parties" or indeed a "claims about events not directly related to the subject." A published opinion represents a claim about the publisher's views (i.e. a first party claim). I find hypothetical examples to be helpful so here's a brief illustration: I hope that makes more sense than my earlier explanation. -Thibbs (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

red white and blue
pokemon Red White and Blue is based on pokemon red and blue, not black and white
 * oops forgot to sign here it is Valehd (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)