Talk:Sealioning/Archive 1

Dictionary definition
This article reads too much like a dictionary definition, it might also be a neologism. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree - it is a neologism, and the only real definition - which everyone sources to - is that little sea lion comic strip. Is sea lioning even a thing? The few instances I have seen anyone using the term is when someone is trying to weasel out of having to back up their claims. Tsuka (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The sources each have different definitions of "sealioning"
-The first source ("Beyond Mansplaining") says sealioning involves "asking unanswerable questions over and over again" - which is not reflected in the comic, nor do the other sources claim anything of the kind, nor are any examples listed. In fact, it isn't even the source itself, but merely quotes the actual source, which is this: http://simplikation.com/why-sealioning-is-bad/ I am replacing "Beyond Mansplaining" with the simplikation link, as that's the actual source. -The second source (Rambukanna) I am going to delete as it doesn't even mention sea lioning. It doesn't even touch on the topic, so why it was included in the first place, I have no idea. -The third source (Davis) claims sea lioning is when you insist on having your questions answered because you are polite. As it seems to misunderstand the comic, and doesn't support the Wiki article's definition, I will delete it. -The fourth source (Sarkeesian) is close to the Wiki article's definition, except that it accurately reflects the comic by stating that sea lioning is an intrusion by an "uninvited stranger", which implies a setting other than open internet forums (indeed, the comic itself describes stalking). I am going to add this to the text of the Wiki article. -The fifth source is simply the comic itself. Fair enough. -The sixth source is also simply the comic itself. And it's not the Independent, as claimed, but a comment on Indy100 which is a share index launched by the Independent, but the Independent cannot be said to vouch for incidental posts on Indy100. Anyway, since it simply re-posts the comic, this source has clearly just been added to increase the bulk of references to make the article look more legit. It is a duplicate source, so I am deleting it. -The seventh source (Maxwell) has this definition: "in an online conversation, repeatedly asking a person questions or making comments which suggest that you are interested in what they are talking about, but are actually intended to annoy them." We can see how this contrasts with Davis's definition, which focused on the polite presentation and did not even mention the repeated questions. Maxwell, on the other hand, focuses on the repeated questions and does not even mention the politeness. Moreover, it points to a criteria which is impossible to validate: "Though in principle, particularly in the context of a debate, [demanding evidence] might seem a reasonable thing to do, the crucial thing about sea lioning is that the person asking (also known as the sea lioner) isn't genuinely interested in the answers to these questions." This leads to "sea lioning" being used as an excuse to refuse to provide evidence, and I daresay this accounts for nearly all - perhaps even all - cases where "sea lioning" has been used as a counter. -The eight source (Poland) is explicit that sea lioning involves harassment and invasion of privacy: "The remainder of the panels feature the invariably polite sea lion invading every part of the woman's life in an attempt to force her to discuss her dislike of sea lions." This is not mentioned in the Wiki article at all, so I'm adding it. Tsuka (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Although the comic does show the sea lion invading every part of the woman's life, that is not part of the definition of sea lioning used by most sources. Most sources consider it to be sea lioning if someone acts that way in one Internet discussion, even though they don't literally show up in person in your bedroom or at your breakfast table. In other words, sealioning and stalking are two different things, both of which the sea lion in the comic does. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the problem, though: In order for the behaviour to be objectionable, it had to be presented as invading someone's privacy. If the sea lion had merely asked for evidence (and you'll note that in the comment, they never actually answer the sea lion's question), then this is nothing less than reasonable and expected. It only becomes a valid nuisance if a) someone keeps asking the same question even though it has been answered, b) following someone around on different boards asking the same question even if it is irrelevant to the topic at hand, or c) badgering someone who is trying to ignore them. Of these, a) is not sea lioning but simply being a pest (and will earn someone a ban on any moderated forum), but b) and c) certainly qualify - though in the case of c), the "sea lioning" is actually being provoked by the deliberate act of ignoring a person. Remember, the invasion of privacy is in the comic for a reason. If it is not analogous to something the "sea lion" does, then it fails to be a legitimate criticism. Tsuka (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Guy Macon and disagree with almost everything said here by Tsuka.
 * "Uninvited stranger" can absolutely apply in an open environment like Twitter. Socially, posting on twitter is not considered an open call for debate opponents.
 * But more importantly, while the term originated by analogy to Malki's comic, the comic should not be taken as an authoritative text on the subject. This article is about the phrase as used in general, not about implications of the comic itself.
 * Sea-lioning is not just about badgering someone, but insisting that they back their conversation up and debate you on an assumption you took as given in your original statement. Maybe that would be acceptable behavior in a courtroom, or a formal Socratic debate, but not in normal human conversation. (Where such conversations will tend to be between people who share most of the same assumptions.) ApLundell (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If "sea lioning" is something quite abstract from the comic itself, then the comic should not be posted as source. And as I pointed out, all of the sources initially referenced in this article had different and differing definitions. The only exceptions were the duplicate source, and the source which did not even mention sea lioning. This marks the word as a neologism, as it has not yet been sufficiently widespread to solidify its definition - but instead the people who use it mold it as they see fit. Which is why people are liable of being accused of sea lioning for simply being polite, or for asking for evidence - even just once.
 * I do not myself have a twitter account, nor have I ever, so I confess I do not know how "private" that avenue is considered to be. My main experience is from forums, which are open to all members. If you are a member, you are by definition invited. But I cannot see how you can argue that Twitter is by any means private when tweets are public, and it is possible for others to comment. It isn't a private space, online or otherwise. And it isn't used as such, either.
 * I also don't know what this sentence means: "insisting that they back their conversation up and debate you on an assumption you took as given in your original statement". I'm sorry, but having read that sentence several times I have no idea what it means. Could you rephrase, please?
 * It is interesting that you bring up the comparison with courts of law. There is no reason why something would be valid there but not elsewhere. In courts of law one barrister gets to speak at a time, with one witness at the time, and the "sea lionesque" questioning in this setting is for the exact same purpose as in internet fora: to keep someone from changing the subject, or otherwise evading criticism to their own arguments. Politicians are being "sea lioned" all the time, but the only reason for this is because politicians are notoriously evasive.
 * I have never seen an example which could qualify as "sea lioning" in a "normal" conversation where the participants are in accord, because there would be no reason for such behaviour. That said, there is absolutely room for formal Socratic debates in friendly conversation among people who share most of the same assumptions. But the only instances I have seen of people accusing others of "sea lioning" them, have been in debates - between people not of the same mind.Tsuka (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: "If "sea lioning" is something quite abstract from the comic itself, then the comic should not be posted as source", nonsense. The comic is the origin of the phrase. Would you have us not mention the play or the two movies in our article on gaslighting simply because in most contexts the phrase has nothing to do with murder, jewel theft, or Gas lighting? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The comic is not only the origin of the phrase, but is being actively used - in this article and elsewhere - as an example of what sea lioning is. Your reference to gaslighting is a strawman, as it originates from a 114 minute long feature film and as such contains more than just the core themes. The main theme, however, is well reflected in the term "gaslighting". But what you are now saying here, there is nothing from the sea lion comic which is relevant, except the presence of a sea lion? If that is the case, the comic must then have been picked at random.Tsuka (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No one should expect a neologism to have a precise and universal meaning. Indeed, if there were a simple "this is what sea lioning means" definition, this article would not exist per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Obviously a comic has to convey its message in a simple way and should not be interpreted as a definitive and literal definition of how the term is used. The MacMillan reference is someone's opinion and is not satisfactory as an in-Wikipedia's-voice ruling about the merits of the term. Sea lioning can be seen at many of Wikipedia's discussions; it's just another form of filibustering. Johnuniq (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Filibustering is a pretty good description. And you are right about the MacMillan reference merely being someone's opinion and not a satisfactory source, but this is one of the original sources of the article - and the same can be said for all the sources which have provided a definition of the term. And neither these, nor any other source I have come across, have deigned to provide examples. They do tend to claim that it is a frequently used tactic, however. I rather suspect that accusing someone of sea lioning in order to avoid having to back up one's own arguments, is a far more frequent tactic than actual sea lioning. I have seen examples of that, but in my 20+ years of posting on various forums I have never encountered sea lioning - as in, feigned civility in order to discredit someone (not sure how that would even work), repetitious questioning in bad faith to make the debate stagnate. Oh, I have seen persistent demands for evidence - but only in cases where the "target" was equally persistent in refusing to provide any.Tsuka (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * "My main experience is from forums, which are open to all members. If you are a member, you are by definition invited."
 * Sure, to the conversation in progress, but that's not the same, socially, as an open call for debate opponents on anything the poster happens to mention.
 * For example, if I mention a feminist charity that I think is doing good work, it would not really be socially acceptable for you to reply by starting a debate the merits of feminist philosophy, and then continue, through sheer stubbornness, to repeatedly insist that I should justify the entire concept of feminism.
 * Of course, I say it's socially unacceptable, but a minority of people disagree, and ... well ... now we have a term for that behavior. ApLundell (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't what you describe already covered by "changing the topic" or "derailing", though? "Sea lioning", the way most people seem to use it, has to do with demands for evidence for an actual claim made. Which begs the question, when is or isn't it reasonable to demand evidence?Tsuka (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is becoming off-topic for an article talk page, however, there are plenty of examples in the archives of the Gamergate controversy discussions. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh right.
 * Back on topic, good job removing a redundant source, but I don't think it's a problem that the definitions in the remaining sources don't exactly match.
 * And even if it was a problem, what would we do about it? ApLundell (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Added section on suggested way to deal with this specific type of trolling
Dr Claire Hardaker, a senior lecturer in linguistics at Lancaster University, who has researched trolls and the content changes are based on the article excerpt below:


 * Sea lioning is the process of killing with dogged kindness and manufactured ignorance by asking questions, then turning on the victim in an instant. “In this, the perpetrator endlessly nitpicks and relentlessly pursues the topic, but oh so very politely and, when the target finally gets annoyed and retaliates, the sea lion takes on the wronged victim of abuse role,” says Hardaker.


 * The solution is a simple one: just don’t engage with the troll in the first place. However, this can be difficult to do – a suspected sea lion may in fact just be a genuinely curious individual looking to learn more. So rather than ignoring them outright or devoting precious time to discussing the individual merits and drawbacks of a point with them, courteously directing them to a third-party resource – a couple of links to news stories about the matter at hand – can help nullify their attempts to derail your day.

Please feel free to update my changes, thanks everyone - 24.16.106.217 (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Your version says:


 * "According to Dr Claire Hardaker, a senior lecturer in linguistics at Lancaster University; the best way to deal with a suspected sea-lioning attack is to direct them towards third-party sources. If they are seriously curious individuals, they will be able to learn more without taking up time and resources."


 * ...but what Dr Claire Hardaker actually wrote was:


 * "The solution is a simple one: just don’t engage with the troll in the first place. However, this can be difficult to do – a suspected sea lion may in fact just be a genuinely curious individual looking to learn more. So rather than ignoring them outright or devoting precious time to discussing the individual merits and drawbacks of a point with them, courteously directing them to a third-party resource – a couple of links to news stories about the matter at hand – can help nullify their attempts to derail your day.


 * What to say: “Here’s a peer-reviewed, academically rigorous link explaining all the information you need. Have a great day!” *Block*" (emphasis in original).


 * So you took an editorial opinion that says "ignore them, but if you must, direct them towards third-party sources and then block them" and claimed that it said "direct them towards third-party sources".


 * And when I attempted to fix the obvious problem that the content you added did not match the source you cited, another editor (one whom I am reluctant to engage with, based upon my observation that no previous discussion with him has been fruitful) reverted me with a factually incorrect edit summary.


 * So, User:24.16.106.217, I am asking you to voluntarily self-revert your edit because it doesn't say what the source you cited says by leaving out the all-important "ignore" and "block" advice. (Unlike Wikipedia, most social media sites allow you to block another user so that you don't see anything they write).


 * On a related note, I question whether we should give this much WP:WEIGHT to any individual's advice on how to respond to sealioning. I think that it is WP:UNDUE. I have posted an RfC on this to see what the community thinks. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This 'opinion' is stated as such and it is relevant as Dr Claire Hardaker has made research into trolling her life's work at university. When do we remove expert opinions?  24.16.106.217 (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Evasion noted. I repeat, YOUR OUT OF CONTEXT PARTIAL QUOTE DOES NOT SAY WHAT THE SOURCE YOU CITED SAYS. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Edit made to include, "the best way to deal with a suspected sea-lioning attack is not to engage them in the first place; but if you must, then to direct them towards third-party sources." as this seems to have been your objection. Perhaps it might be best to focus on improving this article, rather than deleting any changes?  Perhaps find more sources and more expert opinions; rather than cutting out what little is here?  It makes it hard to build anything if others are always tearing down, thanks.  24.16.106.217 (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but it would have been better if you had stopped misquoting the source as soon as it was pointed out to you rather than fighting over it and then giving up.


 * It is hardly fair to characterize multiple editors deciding to remove material that you want to include as "tearing down". We have had two RfCs of this, and the consensus was to not include the opinions of any individuals (Jimbo Wales and Dr. Claire Hardaker in particular) about how to respond to sealioning. Feel free to build up the article with material other than such opinions. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

RFC about the inclusion of Jimmy Wales's opinion of the concept of Sealioning
Does the opinion of Jimmy Wales bear special attention in this article, or should such quotes be removed? -- Jayron 32 19:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion 01

 * Remove Jimmy Wales's specific opinion on this subject is not particularly germain to understanding the article. Per WP:UNDUE, those of an individual entirely unrelated to the subject, with no connection to it, bear no particular need for a direct quote, or to have their opinion cited.  -- Jayron 32 19:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove, pretty much exactly per Jayron32. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove per the two above, if it survives AFD, I have nominated this for deletion as a WP:NEO Darkness Shines (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove - It's bizarre that an RfC is necessary to remove a line sourced only to a tweet. If some reliable sources report on that tweet, then reopen discussion, but seriously? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was just one person -- the person who originally added it -- who restored it. An RfC is not necessary to deal with an edit war/WP:BRD issues. I went ahead and removed it again. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Remove since there is no indication a secondary source thinks the opinion is significant. Stuff based on tweets is undesirable. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove In this respect, Wales is just some guy on the Internet. According to WP:TWITTER, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" (emphasis in original), which is not the case here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove: This is not a good use of the RfC process. I move that we close this and let WP:BRD do its job. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the D. That's kinda part of the process.  -- Jayron 32 11:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but does it have to be an RfC so quick? Can just ping people and discuss. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Who should I ping? The RFC is how we attract neutral editors who are not involved in editing.  Am I supposed to now cherry pick people to ping?  That seems very counter to WP:CANVAS.  -- Jayron 32 19:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep  How many different ways are there to ask this question until someone gets the "right" answer they wanted? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, as far as I know this is the only discussion which has been held on the question posed by this RFC. Can you indicate the prior discussion if there was one?  I cannot find it... -- Jayron 32 16:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: and lets have a polite discussion about why. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 16:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Created new threaded discussion section below. Please start the discussion by explaining why we should keep Jimbo's opinion in the article and not mine or yours. I don't see it, but am willing to be convinced. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Guy Macon, not one person has yet explained why a quote by Jimbo should be kept in the article. So far in this discussion, two people have asserted that it should be, with no justification, and if we count the person that was willing to edit war to keep it in, that person has also not shown up to comment at all.  The people who have asked for it to be removed have all presented reasonable rationales as to why it doesn't belong.  I'd like to hear the counter arguments.  -- Jayron 32 19:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I suspect may be being clever with this. I'm not sure which interpretation is the one that assumes good faith, though. :) &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 00:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove Nobody has proposed any particular reason the comment should be kept. I know Jimbo is a celebrity on Wikipedia, but using that as a justification for giving his comments weight is, at best, a self-reference. I can't see that his comments have any more relevance than all the other things people have said on Twitter about this. ApLundell (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove Gor blimey, what a waste of time! No valid reason to include. Disputed content here. Pincrete (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove. Someone on the internet has an opinion?  Stop the presses! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove - I see no convincing argument supporting inclusion. One opinion from one individual is WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
(Start discussion here) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Blanking of the details regarding the specific nature of 'Sealioning'
This was removed without clear reasoning

What makes 'sealioning' different from other internet trolling, is that the perpetrator makes a point out of doing it so very politely, but persistently. No matter how proficient your answers, information is deemed sufficient, the sea-lion will ask for more. Their goals are not genuine, but an attempt to wear you down, or make you look silly, or to deflect your focus in the argument so you’re serving them over making your point on your own terms.

24.16.106.217 (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why remove details that explain the specifics of 'Sealioning' as different from other trolling?


 * We already had this discussion in the RfC above. Stop edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The removed text is largely or wholly redundant with what we already had, and it's not written in an encyclopedic tone. Moreover, it is a copyvio of the Metro source. Here's an excerpt from their text:
 * The idea isn't to learn – because they could easily go and do that on their own. It's to wear you out and make you look silly, and also deflect your focus in the argument so you're serving them over making your point on your own terms.
 * XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not agree that the text that is being removed falls under the RFC that is being used to justify its removal.
 * In that RFC, Guy Macon asked if wikipedia should include "the opinion of an individual regarding how to respond to sealioning".
 * That does not describe the text that Guy Macon has now removed twice in the name of that RFC. It's hard to imagine how anyone would think it does.
 * ApLundell (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the RFC above is relevant doesn't matter, because the text was a copyright violation and must be excluded per policy. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Because a copyvio can be easily fixed by proper encyclopedic paraphrasing.
 * However, Guy Macon is implying that it would still be unacceptable because of the seemingly unrelated RFC. ApLundell (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not even close to being unrelated. The RfC was about the information in [ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/18/how-to-handle-a-troll-and-neuter-a-sea-lion-dealing-with-online-attacks-astroturfine-trolljacking ] The material I removed per the RfC was about the information in [ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/18/how-to-handle-a-troll-and-neuter-a-sea-lion-dealing-with-online-attacks-astroturfine-trolljacking ] And it most certainly is the opinion of one individual regarding how to respond to sealioning. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The first sentence was redundant with what our article already had; the second two were stolen intellectual property (in addition to having too many "you"s and at least one too few "not"s). Removing that content altogether was a reasonable course of action &mdash; maybe not the only one, but certainly a viable quick fix. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep the additional text and Guy Macon (who I had some respect for until last week) still needs to read the actual source past the first para. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * If I did something to offend you I would like to discuss it on my talk page. Unless, of course, you are more interested in being a jerk than resolving conflicts. That's twice you have accused me of not reading a reference that I have actually read closely. I find this behavior to be annoying. --Guy Macon (talk)
 * You are still persistently edit-warring to remove content, on the basis that it's not supported by a quote from the lead of a ref, when it is in fact a more-specific quote from the body of that ref. Yet you persist in denying what that ref very clearly says.
 * Now, the first cut of the RfC went to lose this section, which I see as a mistake (and some of the "Delete the article, and if I can't delete the article, delete as much of it as possible" arguments in that RfC were very poor), but that's how the RfC went and so I'm not looking to restore it. But repeatedly stating that a ref doesn't contan text it obviously does - well, I start to wonder if you're being served the same newspaper article in your country as in mine? Andy Dingley (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * You are talking about this comment, this ref, and this RfC, Right? If you are talking about something else, please provide diffs.


 * If this assumption is incorrect, please explain, in detail, why.


 * And you agree that I did correctly quote the words of 24.16.106.217 and the Guardian article, Right?


 * If this assumption is incorrect, please explain, in detail, why.


 * And you agree that the first paragraph of the Guardian article -- the paragraph which you have repeatedly claimed is the only part of the Guardian article I have read (without explaining how it is I managed to correctly quote the 10th paragraph of a 19-paragraph article), does not mention sealioning, Right?


 * If this assumption is incorrect, please explain, in detail, why.


 * And you further agree that the only places sea lioning is mentioned in the Guardian article are the title and the "Sea lioning" section, right?


 * If this assumption is incorrect, please explain, in detail, why.


 * And you further agree that I quoted the only place where Guardian article mentioned sealioning, right?


 * If this assumption is incorrect, please explain, in detail, why.


 * Unless one of the above assumptions is incorrect, it appears that you are claiming that


 * "According to Dr Claire Hardaker, a senior lecturer in linguistics at Lancaster University; the best way to deal with a suspected sea-lioning attack is to direct them towards third-party sources. If they are seriously curious individuals, they will be able to learn more without taking up time and resources."


 * ...and...


 * "The solution is a simple one: just don’t engage with the troll in the first place. However, this can be difficult to do – a suspected sea lion may in fact just be a genuinely curious individual looking to learn more. So rather than ignoring them outright or devoting precious time to discussing the individual merits and drawbacks of a point with them, courteously directing them to a third-party resource – a couple of links to news stories about the matter at hand – can help nullify their attempts to derail your day." --Claire Hardaker


 * Have the same content.


 * If this assumption is incorrect, please explain, in detail, why.


 * In particular, please reconcile the claims "the best way [...] is to direct them towards third-party sources" with "The solution is a simple one: just don’t engage with the troll in the first place".


 * Or you can continue to act like a total dick, making accusations without providing any evidence in the form of diffs. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Demanding that someone answer a long list of questions "in detail", is not good etiquette, not required for productive discussion, and veering dangerously close to ironically embodying the article topic.
 * ApLundell (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine. Andy Dingley has repeatedly told obvious lies about me, and ApLundell has a problem with my post detailing the exact nature of the lies with diffs showing that the claims are not true. I refer Dingley to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems like every editor here, except for Guy Macon, agrees that, regardless of whether those paragraphs should be there, they were not covered by the RFC which answered a much more narrow question? ApLundell (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Taking into consideration everything that has been said, I would recommend including the sources and expanding the article. I would also like help regarding the exact text to use so there are no issues of copy right.  This seems far more helpful way to build up this article than deleting any and all additions.  24.16.106.217 (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to expand this article, but plagiarism is not the way to do so. Including whole sentences from other sources is unacceptable, even if a few words are altered. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Are we clear that the sources can be used (and should be used), and that the RFC and its associated objections were just to the specific text cited to them and not the sources themselves? Because it feels like that's the core disagreement here.  My reading is that the RFC was about the text that was cited to them, not the sources; yet it feels like Guy Macon intended it to be on whether we should cite those sources at all, for anything.  Copyvio concerns are easily addressed by rewording, but I want to be clear on what the actual disagreement is before I proceed.  In my eyes, the article clearly requires some expansion, and these sources are good ways to support it.  --Aquillion (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you considering re-adding the opinions of Dr Claire Hardaker after we had an RfC telling you not to do that, or is there something else in the source which you wish to add to the article? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I, just for one, would support re-adding it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad the references are now included, regardless of the exact text which matters far less. I hope there may be a future reconsideration about adding expert opinions on the subject and the article may be expanded over next few years.  It appears the term is here to stay, so we had best, do our best to make this a top grade article with considered expansion.  24.16.106.217 (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If there's been an RFC on whether to use Dr Claire Hardaker as a source, you will have to point me to it; I reviewed the talk logs and could find no such RFC. The only RFC I found is on whether opinion of an individual regarding how to respond to sealioning bear special attention in this article, or should such opinions be removed; but that only covers giving special attention (ie. undue weight, which is something several respondents mentioned) to opinion sources on that specific aspect of 'how to deal with sealioning'.  The source also says that Sea lioning is the process of killing with dogged kindness and manufactured ignorance by asking questions, then turning on the victim in an instant. “In this, the perpetrator endlessly nitpicks and relentlessly pursues the topic, but oh so very politely and, when the target finally gets annoyed and retaliates, the sea lion takes on the wronged victim of abuse role,” says Hardaker.  That's very useful to have in the article.  In particular, it seems obvious that this revert was not supported by the RFC the way you claimed - after all, the reverted text makes no mention of how to respond to it.  Also note the "special attention" and "opinion" bits, both of which were vital in the RFC's discussion - because you included those and many respondents made it clear that those limitations on the conclusion were important to their position, we can still cite discussion of how to handle sealioning in the article as long as it is cited to non-opinion pieces and as long as it is not being given "special attention" (ie. not disproportionate.)  This is, I think, one of the practical reasons why RFCs need to be neutrally-worded - by specifying "opinion" and "special attention", you loaded the question in ways that made the answer easy, but also trivial in a sense that it doesn't really forbid anything meaningful.  --Aquillion (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be must helpful if others were to add the information, as there appears to be more opposition when I attempt to add items or make changes. Thanks for everyone's interest.  24.16.106.217 (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Gamergate controversy
This topic by itself has very little coverage that is independent of the wider Gamergate controversy. I can't find any sources that discuss this phenomenon without it being in the context of online culture wars. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 22:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge. First, "online culture wars" does not equal "sealioning" (nor does Internet culture or Culture war). Second, 8 out of the 10 citations on this page talk about sealioning without talking about gamergate. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The phrase has taken on a life of it's own, according to the references, which now has uses across the internet for a certain type of trolling.  The references do not support your position from anything I've read. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge &mdash; the references amply indicate that the use of the term has spread beyond its origin. And, for that matter, "online culture wars" are a broader topic than Gamergate. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose I see no significant overlap. Even if Gamergate was conducted entirely by a pack of performing sealions (which I doubt), its relevance to sealioning is no more than a See also. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OpposeThere's some relationship here with Gamergate, but most of the citations discuss it outside of that specific controversy. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 16:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * oppose I cannot see a relationship between an arcade game controversy and this internet phenomenon. -Roxy, in the middle . wooF 07:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * oppose It's mentioned in many political discussions, especially on reddit, as part of what's considered uncivil content (along with other things like gaslighting and whataboutism). These links have nothing to do with Gamergate and the merge would not be helpful for people looking for the definition. Came to this article from the r/nostupidquestions sidebar. Sadly none of what I said is considered a reliable source, but there has to be some sources covering it in the way I stated somewhere. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 03:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC about the inclusion of suggested ways to deal with sealioning
Does the opinion of an individual regarding how to respond to sealioning bear special attention in this article, or should such opinions be removed? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Previous RfC: Talk:Sealioning


 * Previous discussion: Talk:Sealioning

Discussion

 * Remove. The specific opinion of any individual on how to respond to sealioning is not particularly germane to understanding the article. Per WP:UNDUE, the editorial opinions of an individual entirely unrelated to the subject, with no connection to it, bear no particular need for a direct quote or to have their opinion cited at all. I would have no objection to having such opinions - if published by a reliable source -- listed in the external links section. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC) modified 01:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what a "suck opinion" is ;) Tornado chaser (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I just changed "having suck opinions" to "having such opinions" in my comment above. See User talk:Guy Macon. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Dr Claire Hardaker of Linguistics and English Language, Lancaster University has made this her life's work and it is therefore an expert opinion from a respected and published professor of forensic corpus linguistics. This makes it most relevant and a good reference on dealing with this particular type of troll, from all the evidence I have found. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Remove. I hesitate to now remove it since you have opened an RfC, Guy Macon, but IMO you're wasting community time with that formality — you'd have done better to remove it yourself. As you say, the addition misrepresents the source. Also, the article is so short that the IP's addition — one of only two paragraphs — gives far too much weight to an individual's opinion. Bishonen &#124; talk 02:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC).
 * So the answer for the lack of expert opinions, to balance out this one; is to remove it, rather than to add more? Now that is an interesting way to build an article and encyclopedia. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You didn't add an expert opinion. You added something that doesn't say what the source you cited says. Also, nobody is an "expert" on how to react to Internet trolls, but there is a broad consensus across the Interenet to not feed the trolls -- the exact part of the alleged "expert opinion" that you left out. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Simple question Guy: have you read the source yet? Your comment, Not what the source actually says: "The solution is a simple one: just don’t engage with the troll in the first place. is obviously wrong, and based on having read just the lead of the article, not the body of it where her actual quote is  (and yes, she does state what she's claimed to have done).  Now go and read it, realise you were wrong, close this and we can all go home. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I did remove it myself, Dingley reverted me, and based upon previous experience I then had a choice of edit warring or posting an RfC -- I have never been able to get Dingley to agree to anything though the preferred route of discussion and seeking consensus.  :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Remove I find myself agreeing with Bishonen's comment in its entirety. The source can be kept as a footnote or an external link; it's high-profile enough to be worth recording. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove I think we are talking about this edit which reverted removal of the IP's edit. While I sympathize with the urge to pad the article out, the passing opinion of a non-notable person on the particular brand of sealioning they might have seen is undue. It also misses the point of what sealioning is, but my opinion should not be in the article either. Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Where is the Google Scholar listing of Dr Claire Hardaker's published works on the subject as this has been her life's work.  She is far from 'non-notable person on the particular brand of sealioning'.24.16.106.217 (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * At Wikipedia, "non-notable" refers to WP:N, the notability policy that must be satisfied for an article on a topic to exist. If the person is notable, see WP:WTAF. Johnuniq (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone that regularly sought out and quoted as an expert, has published multiple works on the subject area and has made this her life's work is as a professor and lecturer is not notable, that makes perfect sense. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not an insult. It just means there is no article on the person because WP:N is not satisfied or no one has noticed there is a missing article. The way to evaluate notability is to write the article first. Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So Clarie is a nobody that nobody should consider listening to, unless she has a profile on Wiki, first? No matter that she has spent her scholastic life in this subject area, is highly regarded and sought after; that makes no sense, and even less logical as a reason to cut out a good suggestion for dealing with Sea-lions. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep This is an expert opinion from a reliable news outlet. Dr Claire Hardaker has made research into trolling her life's work at university. She is well respected in her publications and among her peers at Lancaster University where she has made research aggression, deception, and manipulation in computer-mediated communication (CMC); her primary life's work.  She approaches this from a  forensic linguistic angel, based on a corpus linguistic methodology; but due to the multidisciplinary nature of the research, she inevitably branch out into areas such as psychology, law, and computer science.  This opinion is not mere that of your average person on the street, but one based on a lifetime of study and work, it should stay in some form.  (Sea-lions should be politely redirected to 'third party sites' before you 'block' them, as you do not know and so must assume good faith.) 24.16.106.217 (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your summary here disagrees both with the original source and with the addition to the article currently in question. The source does not say that one "must assume good faith". And while Dr. Hardaker's professional area of specialization is relevant here, I still think that making half the article a regurgitation of one expert's opinion is not quite cricket. To write decently encyclopedic material, we need more experts, and we need to summarize their views accurately. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Most internet forums require politeness and even assuming good faith of others, that assumptions of good faith are not include in the article is because the Guardian piece did not specify it. I agree with you that we need more expert opinions, but removing this one, will not improve this article, only diminish it's usefulness by removing a logical and reasoned response this this type of trolling.24.16.106.217 (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLUDGEON before you continue responding to every comment. While you are at it, Wikipedia indent style is to indent your reply one level, not two (I fixed all of the double indents you have posted so far per WP:TPOC.). --Guy Macon (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You misrepresented Dr Hardaker as some 'individual' and not an expert on trolling that has spent her life's work in this area, before I could fix this oversight; people responded. Also, I have no objection to you adding to this article, perhaps focusing on adding more expert opinions, is in order, not removing them as a course moving forward. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone could be an expert in biology or mathematics or a lot of other things. However, there is no such thing as an expert in the topic of sealioning, certainly not as far as the term is used in a lot of contexts. For example, sealioning occurs at Wikipedia where the quoted remedy would do nothing other than concede to those using the tactic. Johnuniq (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So gutting a reasoned and scholarly opinion is now the Wiki way for not having more expert opinions on the subject to balance it out; this seems like an excellent way to tear down, not build articles. Certainly she did not directly cover this in her works from 2014; but since that was published, she has spent much more time on the specific subject, if you have been following the developments in trolling studies.  24.16.106.217 (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Most internet forums require politeness and even assuming good faith of others, that assumptions of good faith are not include in the article is because the Guardian piece did not specify it." This is Original Research, i.e., adding ideas not present in the source, which is not a thing we are allowed to do here. (It is also factually wrong.) What you wrote misrepresented the source; we cannot build on top of error, only correct it or remove it. I have no objection to citing Hardacker's academic work where appropriate, but misrepresentation does Wikipedia no good (and her no credit). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 07:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That was is my observation and no, it is not included in the article, only items from the Guardian article, did I include, thanks for your observation. What point, pray tell did I 'misrepresent' as I will correct it immediately.  24.16.106.217 (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Guy Macon already explained this. Your correction is appreciated. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Are we talking about a sealion here or a trout? This RfC seems to be little more than a follow on from "Not what the source actually says: "The solution is a simple one: just don’t engage with the troll in the first place. ... *Block*" and defending an indefensible entrenched position. Clearly Guy read the lead of the article, but no more than that.  To be talking about blocks?  Well how about boomerangs? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yet another false accusation from the editor who's ongoing behavior is the reason we are having an RfC instead of a civil discussion on the talk page. I quoted the BODY of the article and explained, in detail, how the edit that you restored does not match the BODY of the source cited. And several other veteran editors have noted the same problem. Feel free to report me at WP:ANI and experience WP:BOOMERANG up close and personal. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Guy, you removed the addition of direct them towards third-party sources. with the summary, (Not what the source actually says: "The solution is a simple one: just don’t engage with the troll in the first place. ... *Block*". Now that's good advice, found everywhere from Professor Elemental to the opening of this article.
 * However this article also says, in the specific section on Sealioning, What to say: “Here’s a peer-reviewed, academically rigorous link explaining all the information you need. Have a great day!” *Block*. So your edit summary, if not your whole reversion is wrong.
 * So far we have had a disagreement over your edit summary. The presence of this content, or not, is another matter - personally I'd keep it, as a relevant comment by a RS academic. However stop saying that you're being attacked by other people reverting your changes (you've been reverted once), stop trying to defend your edit summary (if you need me to screenshot that text before you withdraw your false claim, "Not what the source actually says" then it will be posted to ANI, not here), stop digging that hole and stop hitting that poor sealion with a stick. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This sort of factually incorrect claim is why I don't want to have a discussion with you. The quote "The solution is a simple one: just don’t engage with the troll in the first place." is in the second paragraph of sea lioning section of the article, about halfway through the article, not in the lead. That's twice you have threatened me with ANI. Do it! Either put up or shut up. I am tired of your empty threats.
 * I am now going to follow my own advice and ignore your trolling. If I see any further comments with your signature on them. I will simply skip to the next comment without reading whatever you have to say. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Remove in current state This coverage is undue with only one source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This 'individual' is Dr Claire Hardaker, Senior Lecturer in Forensic Corpus Linguistics at Lancaster University and specialise in "research aggression, deception, and manipulation in computer-mediated communication (CMC), including phenomena such as flaming, trolling, cyberbullying, and online grooming." 24.16.106.217 (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh - Leaning towards keeping it. People were quite gung ho about keeping this article at the AfD despite nearly all of the reliable coverage being the same repeated definitions and descriptions of the comic. Now there is something beyond that and it should be removed because, well, because there's so little to write about it? Might've been enough coverage for squeaking by GNG, but I still think NOPAGE should've applied. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with citing the Guardian item as a source and getting a sentence or so of content from it; the original edit that started this whole mess was bad text, and I'm still not really a fan of what the page says now. We're an encyclopedia, not an advice manual. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait...what? We are an encyclopedia??? So that's what I have been doing wrong the last twelve years... --Guy Macon (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove. It might make sense to cover anti-sealion strategies here, WP:NOTHOWTO notwithstanding, but one person's advice doesn't amount to anything encyclopedic. I think we should wait for sources that mention several people's views on this together before including a section about it. Contra the IP, adding more individual opinions for balance doesn't strike me as a good idea since it could quickly get into needless WP:SYNTH debates about whose opinions are worth including. &rsaquo; Mortee  talk 16:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove - As I stated in the previous RfC, one opinion from an individual with no connection to the subject is WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains (<b style="color:#5F9EA0">talk</b>) 01:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove and the article should be deleted. It's just a dictionary definition. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 13:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: in the previous (January 2018) deletion discussion the !votes were 6 merge/delete and 14 keep. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLUDGEON before you continue responding to every comment."24.16.106.217 (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I informally suggest reopening the AfD for this article. It's a dictionary definition of an internet slang term. It should be merged into the Trolling, Debate or Dialectics articles. I can't see much expansion of the content beyond what this RfC is about. If it stays, then more on the terms usage to gag debate opponents. "You're asking too many questions, you must be a troll!" UaMaol (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Reword; the sources seem useful, but the way we're using it could be improved. Also, procedural objection - it is unclear from the wording of this source whether the RFC is over whether we should use the source at all, or whether we should cite it to describe ways of dealing with Sealioning (but that it is otherwise a valuable source.)  The wording and most of the responses imply the later (ie. people discussing that specific bit of information), but several of Guy Macon's edits elsewhere on this page imply that he sees it as a decision to exclude those two sources completely.  Strong objection to that, but I want to clarify that I don't see this RFC as addressing that point (and therefore, regardless of how it is closed, I'll re-add them under other contexts, since the article is short on sources and needs them) - if Macon wants to exclude them completely, we need an RFC stating so unambiguously. --Aquillion (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Why are attempts to expand this article so difficult to achieve?
Note

So the expansion of this article in an encyclopedic manner should be encouraged, with helpful edits that help the reader to achieve a fuller knowledge of all aspects of this article; yet it seems as if any attempts to do so are met with additions being deleted, even if all that is needed is some editing to improve them. This is disheartening for the editors and a disservice to the readers, IMO 24.16.106.217 (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Are you proposing re-adding the opinions of Jimbo wales or Dr. Claire Hardaker after we had an RfC telling you not to add opinions about how to respond to sealioning, or are you proposing expanding the article in some other way? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * NO, I'm saying that it would be useful to this project to consider changes to improve additions, before deletion. No one has attempted to circumvent the RfC by adding opinions; but it seems an editor or two are very quick to delete any changes.  It's as if more effort is being spent to strip this article, rather than to expand it.


 * It is little wonder that editors give up in exasperation, or that I stayed away for some 9yrs with this slap now style. I again wonder if it is worth the effort. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Which recent addition, excepting the ones you note above are proper, do you object to? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Separating the origins of the phrase from the description of what it is, would be one place to start expanding the article, IMO. But the last time I tried to do so, it was quickly reverted. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The article, even after recent expansion, is two short paragraphs. It does not need division into sections. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps if you and other editors continue with this change of heart to add more than is deleted, this article might soon be up to three 'short paragraphs'; this has been most refreshing to see this article being built up over the past few days. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps if you read WP:1AM and follow the advice in it you won't spend so much time ranting about article content that you want to include and that just about everybody else wants to exclude. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Please read this essay of mine, which carries no additional weight on Wikipedia, but looks impressive because I've given it an ALLCAPS shortcut"
 * Guy, your complaint here might carry more weight if it was only one person seeking to expand this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Sealioning is a Weasel Word
I feel like this article in its current state is dangerous to public discourse. The definition, "pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility", is practically indistinguishable from healthy debate, except here intent is unilaterally assumed (by the person being questioned) to be in bad faith. It is unethical to keep this page up without mention of this important caveat - although given the heavy political slant of almost all of the sources, this feels more of an attempt to create another means of shallowly dismissing dissenting opinions when confronted with difficult questions. This article quietly legitimizes a weasel word, although the term is likely not popular enough to attract any attention from an "expert" to provide citation for my claim and make it worthy of its own section. (expert in what, exactly, btw?)

I've nominated this page for deletion in its current state, although maybe there is another more appropriate tag, I'm rather new to this process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempowaryacc (talk • contribs) 19:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NPOV and WP:OR. We reflect what reliable sources say, not editors' opinions. It's also concerning you think this is what debate looks like.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What EvergreenFir said. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Calmly asking questions to point out flaws in an argument is not malicious. I think it's more concerning that you would presume to know someone's intent simply because they disagree with you, and use something like this to shut down debate; this is on par with thought crime. Moreover, this is representative of a disturbing trend in politics where words have recently been redefined or invented to control a narrative, rather than communicate anything of substance. To co-opt the typical inane vocabulary, stop concern trolling me. Gamergate, Anita Sarkeesian, "Toxic Technocultures and Geek Masculinity": the political slant on this page is palpable, and sealioning is not real, regardless of what these laughable "experts" (non-technical journalists?) have to say. This kind of blatantly politicized nonsense detracts from wikipedia's credibility, and that's where your concern should lie. At the very least, you must agree that this article deserves a NPOV tag, which I've added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.178.21 (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)  — 174.21.178.21 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Nope. The sources are fine, and the article represents them fairly. That's NPOV. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you understand what bias is? No one has addressed my points, but you've reverted my tag immediately. Your behavior is absolutely toxic. I'm putting the tag back up because you don't seem to understand that when literally all sources for a politically charged topic happen to align with the same ideology, the point of view cannot be neutral. Especially troubling is that these sources only link "sealioning" to the so called alt right, as if no one else is capable of this alleged behavior. If this isn't political bias, I don't know what is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.178.21 (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The only "bias" in the article is in favor of peer-reviewed scholarly publications, reporting in mainstream news outlets, and a lexicographer. All of which, again, the article represents fairly. I am quite confident that leftists, feminists, Ocasio-Cortez voters, etc., etc., are capable of sealioning, but since none of the reliable sources talk about them doing so, the article does not, either. Again, NPOV. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * IP editor, please read WP:BIASED and WP:TRUTH.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We of course follow the sources, and often the sources simply reflect reality. There are more creationists on the right, but there are more antivaxers and anti-GMOers on the left. And it appears from the sources that there has been more sealioning involved in the gamergate fight than other, similar fights. Feel free to look for reliable sources that discuss sealioning in other contexts. Nobody will object to adding the material if it is relevant and well sourced. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Could the Term "Sea Lioning" Be Used as a Pejorative to Suppress Discussion?
I've deleted my post for being "forum", however I still think the question is valid. There is plenty of RS that illustrates the use of pejorative as a means by which to silence debate. The question is, should this Article include some sort of "caution" warning people that the accusation of "Sea Lioning" (as just one of any number of pejoratives) is yet another example of this kind of thing? Or do Articles require a direct connection by every single pejorative in RS?Tym Whittier (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, we would need solid sources for anything like this. This talk page is for discussing the encyclopedia article about the term. If you are discussing the term's use on Wikipedia, WP:SEALION redirects to Civil POV pushing, which is about the underlying problem. That essay, over there, already includes many links to other Wikipedia essays discussing these issues, so perhaps your questions have already been discussed. Regardless, this isn't the place to share personal opinions or concerns. Grayfell (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I want to thank you for that link to the Article on Civil POV. Some of it may apply to me, while other parts may apply to those around me.  I liked the idea that the "governing authority" chose to stay out of it, given the complexity, etc... And from there I went to WP:NEO, and THAT is really the heart of all my wordy objections.  I was all wrapped-up in the "why" of my objections, when I could have simply stated the "what" and been brief.Tym Whittier (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Should there be a direct external link to the 'Sea Lion' strip?
Attempts to add a direct external link to the original strip was the origins of the term are being deleted without reason:


 * The Terrible Sea Lion, Wondermark #1062

Without a direct external link, it is more difficult for users of wiki to find and understand the origins of this phrase. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Basically what you are saying is that it is desirable to duplicate some links that are in the numbered references in the external links, supposedly as a benefit to the reader. Which of course raises the questions "Which links?" and "Who decides which links get the special treatment?"


 * We go through this all of the time when dealing with well-meaning editors who think that controversial claims should be duplicated in the infobox so that the reader who doesn't read the body of the article won't miss them (the actual purpose of an infobox is the summarize certain uncontroversial facts that appear in multiple articles, like date of birth).


 * It isn't our place to spoon feed information to an imaginary reader who is unwilling to read the citations. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that it is desirable to have a direct link to the strip that started the phrase "Sealioning", rather than jumping through a few links to find it. I can speak for myself, thanks 24.16.106.217 (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Of course that link should be here. And, as it's the originator of the term, prominently. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The link is present. It goes directly to the strip that originated the term. And it is labeled as such, making it IMO more useful than an entry in a link dump. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is currently only listed as a reference that is not clear, but obscured as just another footnote number; that is hardly the same as an external link to the strip. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Recommendation: As it appears opinions are evenly split, it may be best to go to RfC on this question of if there should be an external link directly to the strip that started the use of the phase.  Unless someone has another thought?  24.16.106.217 (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * To be persnickety about it, opinions aren't "evenly split"; two people have spoken in favor, and three have opposed, counting this edit by . But counting aside, the Manual of Style is pretty clear on this point: "These hyperlinks should not appear in the article's body text, nor should links used as references normally be duplicated in this section." I fail to see any reason why this situation is abnormal, or why an RFC would be a good use of the community's time. (Well, my time is worthless, but other editors may value theirs more highly. :-P ) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 04:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That is why you drop it as a reference and list it as an external link so it is not duplicated or a hyperlink in the body of the text. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 06:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thereby making the text of the article less useful for those who actually read it. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it says "nor should links used as references normally be duplicated in this section" Nor.  As in, "also, don't do this".  The strip is currently linked in the reference section.  We don't need two copies of that link.  It's already there, reference 7.  People can still get there in one click.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Then at the very least move the footnote behind the word strip so it more accurately shows the connection between the two. I know it's not standard form, but it would make the connection much more useful and increase the direct link. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No thanks. It's fine where it is.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I honestly can't see how it makes that much of a difference (it looks slightly worse to me after "strip", but not enough that I really care). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's the same reason we have graphics and images; not everyone learns best, in the same linear standard way, but through many methods including visual methods. Short of including the strip, linking to it as best that is possible, is the next best thing.  24.16.106.217 (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Tell them you disagree with Manual of Style/Layout, which says "nor should links used as references normally be duplicated in this section". Come back when you successfully get the Manual of Style changed. You cannot change our rules on external links here. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As you noted the guidelines state that it is not normally done. So duplication has been done and can be done when it is helpful, it just not normally done. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. It's the basis for the concept. I have no problem duplicating an EL and a ref, but if it should be removed from one place, it should be retained as an EL. I'm not convinced it needs to be removed from one, though, unless someone can articulate a reason beyond the letter of a style guideline. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 03:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In my experience, "External links" sections are slag dumps. They attract unreliable sources, tangentially relevant websites and promotionalism (LinkedIn profiles and other garbage). Going through ELs, finding what in them is relevant to the article and using them to add content with appropriate inline citations is progress. So, I'll admit, I have a bit of an emotional skew against letting EL sections grow. That said, I've walked away, done other stuff and come back, and I still can't see the case for this being an abnormal situation, with respect to the style manual. Sure, the strip was "the basis for the concept"; the article says as much, and points to the strip right there. Meh. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what point you're making. There's one single EL that's most relevant to this subject. It's a comic strip that we do not have on Commons and does not satisfy NFCC (although now that I mention it, I'm not sure). Nobody is arguing for a pile of ELs. I certainly wouldn't stop you from removing the one other EL that's there if you have a problem with ELs in general (?), but there's only one that's obviously relevant. Not duplicating a reference in EL makes sense when it's a source of addition information like an article about the subject (like just about any of the other references we use), not when it is the subject or is the basis of the subject, and I consider arguments along those lines to be a clear letter-not-the-spirit of the wikilaw. Anyway, it serves absolutely no purpose as a reference, since the fact it was backing up is verified by a whole bunch of the other sources, so I've just moved it down. If someone reverts for some weird reason, we can just do an RfC as this is silly. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 16:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It definitely serves a purpose as an inline citation: its being there is helpful for people who read the article from the beginning. If I were writing about sealioning on some other website &mdash; in a blog post, say, or for an online magazine &mdash; I'd put a hyperlink to the original strip at the point where I mentioned it. I wouldn't shuffle it off to a list of bullet points at the bottom. The analogue here is to have an inline citation at that point (which offers the added benefit of including a retrieval date and other such ancillary information that a regular hyperlink doesn't). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, for better or worse we put all external links at the bottom. As with any article on a subject with a clear website or about something with an obvious link, we could just link it inline, but instead we move it to the external links section. The references section doesn't serve the same purpose. It's for verifying information. In this case, the link wasn't needed to verify anything because all of the other refs verify that information. The purpose you're describing is what we use the EL section for. Again, I don't see any good reason it shouldn't be in both, but if it's in one place it should be in the place where we put the external links that provide information in addition to the article, not just support information in the article. We're getting into nitty gritty MOS stuff, though, which is probably better kept for those guideline pages. In this particular case, given how we use refs/ELs, it seems clear, to me at least, that the EL section is the best place and that it could also be used as a ref (additionally, not instead) should someone want to do that. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * IMO, this is an elegant solution. Citing the comic inline seems odd because it's a primary source for the claim it was being cited to support (and doesn't technically support that claim, since it doesn't rule out earlier use)—we should be citing a secondary source for the statement about when it originated. -sche (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Missing Separation
Following the logic of this article any person who is simply not prepared to accept a statement without corroboration can now be tagged with this term. Obviously that's not scientific since science simply requires claimes to be proven. I just imagine my math teacher requesting us to prove some math statement and somebody requesting him/her to stop the sealioning.

So in my opinion the article is incomplete in several ways. It is missing a clear statement to the effect that the bad intend of the "troll" must be proven by ways outside of his requests for prove (as the later in itself is not objectionable) and that the term can be abused in order to get away with claims that the "victim" is unable to prove as to be true. JB. --92.193.220.187 (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have a WP:RS that expands on the use and definition of the term, then please do add it. Britishfinance (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Quora Article
The original article referred to by the book, which is, fwiw highly critical of the gamergate movement consisted of 15 articles. I am now going to research Source 14, and if source '15' is the listed quora article, then 14 isnt a reliable source either. Reddit isnt a reliable source. Quora isn't a reliable source and a publicly published article that sites a 'trend' of 15 different users isnt a 'study'. Given that Andy seems to have access to the original source perhaps he can also quote a source from 14 about why the term came into use instead of simply focusing on why folks from the cited REDDIT stream feel it was 'oppressing' them? Otherwise its WP:Undue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.28.20.139 (talk • contribs)
 * What you call the "Quora Article" is a paper published in the journal First Monday in Volume 23, Number 2 - 5 February 2018. Are you saying that this the First Monday paper is (1) not an RS, or (2) being misquoted, or (3) not suitable (e.g. UNDUE); or all three.  I am confused as to your specific issue here.  (PS, I have been separately deleting an External Link to a different Quora page on Sealioning that appears empty and thus redundant, which I presume you are not referring to). thanks Britishfinance (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding your postscript: external links to Quora are almost always bad and should be kept out, per WP:ELNO. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/8232/6644 does NOT contain the quote listed. Cited source does not contain this quote.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.28.20.139 (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, yes, it does. It's quote P13, just a little after Figure 3. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, my own reaction to that "example" was much the same as ApLundell's above. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Without more detail, the implied focus of the article is that its somehow about how sealioning is a term used to silence dissent; it simply actually states that in their research of the term 'harassment' SOME members of Gamergate felt it was to silence their dissent. I added more text for actual CONTEXT for the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.28.20.139 (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't feel the content in block quotes should be added - it is too specific and selective. I am not even sure that the First Monday article is a good quality RS, however, if it is to remain, it should be without the quotes. 19:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britishfinance (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, while context is good, long quotations are not necessary to establish it. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is about Sealioning as an internet term. Giving 20% of the text to the opinions of Gamergate and how it hurteded their feelings is probably indeed WP:Undue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.28.20.139 (talk • contribs)

Edit warring
Here is a discussion that I hope will help stop today's Edit War, especially considering the lede. Newimpartial (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Mrspaceowl has been blocked for 3 months for edit-warring. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they were blocked one minute after I restored the pre-EW version. At least we'll have this space for the next time. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Abuse of the term.
This term can also be used to silence legitimate questions. --Handroid7 (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * If you have a reliable source for that perspective, please present it. Otherwise, this isn't the place to share personal observations. Grayfell (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Fully agree with handroid7. It has also been discussed in felix von leitners blog.
 * All in all looking at the history this article seems to be badly moderated. 2A01:598:9287:F6BD:C24C:ECCE:C2F7:13A7 (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * @Handroid7: AFAIK the Talk page is intended to discuss possible improvements to the article. While the requirement for reliable sources exists for the article I'm not aware that such requirement exists for the Talk page. Please present a reliable source that says otherwise ;-). Yeah, we seem to start accumulating good examples for that kind of behavior ... JB. --92.193.220.187 (talk) 08:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. The above blog is not a reliable source suitable for Wikipedia (per WP:RS). Britishfinance (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * As per WP:RS, "statements of opinion" can very well be articles published in a blog-style ("Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact."). I feel like a section detailing criticism of the term could help discern abusive and real use of the word and thus it would make sense to include it in the from of outside opinions. --Iconstrife (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The issue is that the author, an IT security expert, is not an expert in this field (or even a related field), for his opinion to be of value in an encyclopedia on the term. If you had a blog from a notable expert in psychology/behavioral science etc., pointing out abuses of the term, then that would be of value in the article.  There was a lot of such blog/opinion pieces material earlier in the creation of this article (from Jimbo Wales as I remember), that had to be taken out. The RS must be from experts, or, at least notable people/notable sources relaying what an expert has said. Britishfinance (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks for the quick answer! I can see how he is not part of the scientific community researching this sort of behavior. What I do not get however, is why you then said that the other reference to the Forbes blog could persist, reasoning that: "restoring this reference; the author is not positioning himself as an expert, but simply a notable figure (he has his owm WP article), commenting on the term, in a notable source. However, happy to discuss on the TP if I am wrong here", as you said in the history of the article. This seems to contradict your own argument if I am not mistaken. I am curious (really!) to understand the reasoning.--Iconstrife (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is only that he is doing the 2nd part of what I said above, relaying what an expert has said - however, I am still borderline about it, and it may not survive! Britishfinance (talk) 11:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see. It still seems a bit far fetched for me to be honest, but I do not know much about wikipedias rules... Another question: would you consider the following article to be a reliable source? ? It might be used to show the other side of the argument, e.g.: "Some participants [of the study] said that [...] opponents sometimes consider expressions of sincere disagreements with them as harassment and block them" or e.g. as an example of how the term might be misused: "Thats a sealioning question. I don't trust you. You're blocked". I personally think that those are good examples of what critics point out and it is in a paper about behavioural science. --Iconstrife (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The WP rules are as per any quality database - only information from reliable and independent quality secondary sources (per WP:PAG). The problem with the article you quote above is that it doesn't use the term "Sealioning" (as far as I can see).  If it doesn't explicitly use the term, then you are into WP:SYNTH (e.g. an editor can start to "create" their own interpretation of things).  The core problem with "Sealioning" is that while it is just about notable as a term, the proper research and quality sources on it are still quite thin (you can see above it was put up for deletion twice).  It is not uncommon to find an early WP article being hotly debated with huge Talk Page discussions because WP:RS is thin on the ground; a few years later, the debate has stopped as major pieces of quality RS have been produced and the article becomes static. Britishfinance (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that makes sense of course. The problem here is that all scientific articles that one can find seem a bit... one sided. And I am saying this as someone who spends quite a lot of time reading scientific articles (in mathematics and physics, though). As you pointed out, there are not really a huge number of quality RS and I think this is the main problem with this article. It presents something which currently is highly controversial as scientific fact and this is what bothers me. Regarding the paper quoted above: It does use the term sealioning and even defines it in the introduction. The quote I put above is taken from the article and uses the term verbatim. Could you please further elaborate on what you meant as to this article not talking about the term? (And thanks for giving me a sort of introduction to the WP processes!)--Iconstrife (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise that it mentioned Sealioning - I searched the abstract and didn't find it; it if does mention the term then that is potentially interesting. The other question is whether this is properly published work (e.g. is this a paper published in a journal by notable academics - if so, then it is certainly worthy of consideration).  If it is a paper submitted by non-notable students/PhD's, then again, that is going to be a problem. Britishfinance (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * According to the article it was published in the First Monday (journal). Compared to most of the other sources in this article it seems to be quite a reliable source.--Iconstrife (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What that article talks about is members of the principal GamerGate subreddit claiming that their own legitimate questions have been dismissed as sealioning. (I recall reading it before when looking up potential sources for something, possibly this article but maybe something else.) The arXiv version is free to read. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The example given in this section seems strangely self-defeating. Was it chosen to make /r/KotakuInAction look like fools, or is it honestly representative?

This is the 21st century. We've all got the same Google. If you're publicly challenging a stranger to research specific statistics that you could just as easily look up yourself (if you sincerely cared), then you absolutely *are* sealioning. Who thinks that's normal behavior? ApLundell (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I think everybody gets that you can just ask over and over again for something that is easily "google-able" and that this can be used to do a sort of denial of service attack on a person. The main problem that critics (myself included) have is that the definition given on this page seems to be really, uncomfortably, close to the definition of a debate. It just talks about "persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions" which is absolutely what everybody would do if their opponent claims something without providing evidence. Instead now the opponents could refer to this article and say:"I do not have to answer that because you are sealioning", as there is no description on here showing when it becomes "bad faith". Instead, anybody gets to decide when a behavior constitutes "sea-lioning" themselves and just hide behind the term even if the request was legitimate and in "good faith". I was hoping to at least show that there are some problems with that and thought that the reference should be included. Any other reference to critics was being removed so at least keep this study (which was written by the same people as other studies used as source in this article, so please accept it, even though it does not fit your believe system apparently).--Iconstrife (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It just talks about "persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions" which is absolutely what everybody would do if their opponent claims something without providing evidence. No, it talks about "pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity" (emphasis added). It's the pretense that makes it bad faith. The article describes this fairly adequately. And the study, which currently is in the article, only shows that a few GamerGaters assert that accusations of sealioning shut down "legitimate debate". As for the issue that anybody gets to decide when a behavior constitutes "sea-lioning" themselves and just hide behind the term, that's true of any named rhetorical technique or logical fallacy. For example, anyone can call a remark an "ad hominem attack" and refuse to reply to its contents, whether or not the remark was actually an ad hominem. Quoting the study at greater length does not actually illuminate this point. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * In my eyes the part with "while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerety" makes the term even more prone to be abused. To illustrate my point i propose the following hypothetical scenario: I claim something preposterous, like "the earth is flat". You of course think this is a dumb thesis but you are polite about it and ask me: "Could you provide some proof for the claim of yours", thinking that this can convince me of my ignorance once I search for proof. I answer:"I have looked outside the window and it is flat". You counter: "There is the ISS orbiting above our heads. You would have to provide evidence for a mechanism on how that works...". I on the other hand have read this WP article and mentally check the components of "sea-lioning": "persistent requests for evidence", check, "repeated questions", check, "maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity", double check (because in my belief system you have are only trying to sound polite and sincere, because obviously you are wrong about what you are claiming). Regarding your point, that my statement above is true of any rhetorical technique, I agree, but in this case it is distinctly different because the definition of "sea-lioning" is so close to what you would do in a debate, as hopefully the (admittedly dumb) example above illustrated. In my mind contesting someone on their belief if you think this someone is wrong should be one of the cornerstones of science and a healthy debate. If you have not already read it, I recommend you read "1984" to see how such "rebranding" of correct behavior could be used to discredit someone.--Iconstrife (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * If it happened during what both parties agreed was a debate that they both were interested in participating in, then you're correct : "sea-lioning" would not apply. If that's confusing you, perhaps we can find a way to explain that in the article.


 * However, Being Wrong on Social Media is not an irrevocable request for a debate opponent. That's the crux of it.
 * Unless the stranger specifically said something like "Prove me wrong!", then I don't think your example is "distinctly different" than sea-lioning.
 * In your example, you're not sincerely requesting information, you're using questions as a rhetorical technique to proselytize to an individual stranger whom you've singled out.
 * Singling out individuals and badgering them with insincere questions has never really been good etiquette. That's not new, what's new is that we have a word for it.
 * ApLundell (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * And, of course, accusations of Sealioning can not be used to silence the perpetrator, because nothing will silence the Sealion. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * You keep saying "opponent" as though we were discussing something that happened during a formal debate.
 * Nobody has an "opponent" on social media. ApLundell (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Medium post by subject matter expert
removed the text below as it was a Medium source, however, I thought that WP:RS/P gave some exception where the author was a "subject matter expert", which this author is here, and here? Can we reconsider the removal? thanks. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

"In June 2020, clinical psychologist and academic, Dr. Jonathan N. Stea, called sealioning "Death by a million bad-faith questions", and that it is ".. an insidious Trojan horse. It cloaks misinformation and propaganda in many disguises: politeness, sincerity, curiosity, compassion, and even martyrdom"."


 * Assuming for the moment that clinical psychology is a relevant area of subject-matter expertise, why is that quotation particularly worth including? Doesn't it basically just restate what the article already says? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with User: XOR'easter's assessment that this material does not belong. It didn't add so much to the article, mainly.  Moreover, Medium is certainly better to avoid as a source, and I don't think Stea is such a recognized expert to counteract that.  Since better sources are available, there's no reason to use a poor-quality source here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the links above, the guy writes frequently in Psychology Today, and is an Associate Professor in the field. Doesn’t matter that he uses Medium, as he is an expert.  He also gives wider views on the term than other sources, and his entire article is about the term.  Surely a subject matter expert and academic, who writes in other quality RS, with entire recent article on the Wiki topic, is of interest? 109.255.90.188 (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Associate Professors are seldom so significant within their field that everything they say is noteworthy. But even accepting that his professional credentials indicate his expertise in a relevant field, sources with editorial standards are always preferable, even when authors are experts. A peer-reviewed journal article about theoretical physics is a better source than a blog post by a theoretical physicist, for example. Even experts benefit from double-checking and quality control. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you, but given that it is still a small article, I thought a full article written by an expert, who writes in other subject matter RS publications, would be an interesting addition? He does have interesting observations on the term.  If I was researching the topic, I think I would want to read his article? thanks. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Reddit thread
That paragraph dealing with comment from a Reddit thread needs to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.10.150 (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Original cartoon
Is there a way to show Malki's original cartoon even as a thumbnail in this article? Are there exceptions on copyright as per the use of film posters and album covers on other Wikipedia articles that can be used here? 78.19.236.182 (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Why is this article written like this?
This is written as if 'sealioning' is a type of trolling and harrassment and then goes on to refute itself later on showing that this is a word that just stifles disagreement.

In my opinion this wikipedia article needs to be rewritten or deleted. Sneakycrown (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, it says that trolls who practice sealioning believe that it is a word that stifles disagreement. We could make it more clear though, check out the source. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * look at the long repeated editors blocking changes to the sexism topic in the talk page. A simple tactic to pretend debate on the merits of the change, ask for reliable sources, claim the reliable sources are fringe, claim that reliable sources directly quoted from other wikipedia pages are not reliable, then claim one out of ten sources is for it and nine existing inthe wiki page are against it, then ultimately picking a word or two out of context to claim the discussion is in bad faith.
 * Then closing the discussion as not going anywhere. Sealioning even gets mentioned in the discussion by an editor.
 * there are dozens of sealioning in the sexism talk page.
 * it’s why people leave wikipedia to not engage with micro napoleon persons sitting on an topic with a do not touch, spindle, fold or mutilate sign.
 * most controversial topics have a similar topic sitter claiming to prevent vandalism, de facto excluding academic reliable sources disagreeing with their worldview.
 * rules lawyers in action — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:3818:4172:4496:E9E1 (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It both starts as a bad faith form of debate/aguement but ends up as trolling (per the cartoon). The sources in this article are very good, and their descriptions of Sealioning are pretty clear (and the DOS aspect very insightful). 78.19.236.182 (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have been able to update some of these sources (the Miriam-Webster dictionary now specifically calls it trolling), added add more references from academics, some of which also directly call it trolling. Should be even clearer now. 78.19.236.182 (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Legitimacy of the concept and neutrality of the article.
The article assumes that sealioning is an objective concept, but doesn't explain how it's different from any other bad faith argument. Taken literally, it implies that challenging bigoted or incendiary remarks can never be done in good faith and the person making said remarks can never be the aggressor in the exchange. It even marks politeness, requests for evidence, and other necessary components of discussion as indicators of the problem.

This is just a really dodgy concept and shouldn't be framed as an objective phenomenon. Acknowledge the use of the term as pejorative, not purely descriptive. The articles for "social justice warrior" and "playing the race card" do an excellent job of this, I think. 2603:7081:1603:A300:C00D:B1C5:5CF1:E794 (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * *"Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence"*
 * *"It has been described as 'incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate'."*
 * I think the article makes it clear that this is different from challenging bigoted or incendiary remarks in good faith. The problem is the *harassment*.  Even bigots do not owe anyone a debate or discussion, and repeatedly badgering them to participate in one is harassment and not good faith.
 * If you disagree that the article makes this clear, how do you think it could be clarified? ApLundell (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)