Talk:Calgary Expo

Ampersand versus and

By visiting http://www.calgaryexpo.com/ and looking in its logo or the title "Welcome to the 10th Anniversary of the Calgary Comic & Entertainment Expo!" it appears they consistently use a & (ampersand) symbol instead of "and". Should the page be moved to Calgary Comic & Entertainment Expo to reflect this? Ranze (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I think there is something in the manual of style that suggests against it, but I'm not sure. Resolute 15:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

2015 incident modification

@Bilby: I am wondering how I might have improved this in response to your objection and removal of info. I take it you object to using the incident-tweet by Calgary Expo's official Twitter because of the words used in it. I am wondering if it would be okay if I shortened the quote to just "We're investigating the booth" but not say what they were investigating?

I think the Tweet actually serves as evidence though: CCEE is explicitly saying they did not give GG a booth, so this is not primarily a GG issue. Particularly since (as well known from other news sources) the reasons given for booting the booth are more related to claims that the host disrupted a discussion panel or did not update their web site properly.

Regarding the MetroNews article, would it be okay to list it as a reference if I omit the first portion of the title and simply call the reference "Rumours of booth at Calgary Expo have fans up in arms"?

Regarding the article by Stephen Hunt of the Calgary Herald, "Booth evicted from Calgary Expo" seems incredibly neutral, no mention at all of what you're objecting to, so why remove this as well? Surely at least this could stay as evidence that a notable secondary news source has reported on a booth eviction. Ranze (talk) 08:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

One concern I have is WP:UNDUE. The removal of that group was, ultimately, an utter non-event except in the minds of people already obsessing over Gamergate. That being said, it might still be fair to consider whether or not a line is warranted, but was presented had no context and would have left a reader wondering "so what?". Also, just a word of caution for anyone who chooses to get involved in a larger discussion, this topic falls under the discretionary sanctions placed by the Arbitration Committee via the Gamergate arbitration case. So if anyone comes in to discuss or debate the merits of adding a comment about this to the article, please keep it calm and civil. Resolute 15:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

75.156.202.134 (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC) I think the 2015 incident definitely does require a write-up, because it is a very important event in the history of the Expo. It has definitely created some controversy, even amongst people totally unaffiliated with anything even remotely close to GamerGate. A scan of YouTube shows that there are numerous commentaries by individuals from Cosplayers to news sources. Complete removal of the update makes it appear that someone is trying to hide something.

75.156.202.134 (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC) I've updated and added backing material to the 2015 incident text. It's reasonable and fair game to include it as it definitely does fall in with the history of the Calgary Expo, and definitely does warrant mention. GamerGate as a group and as an incident in and of itself may fall under the discretionary sanctions, however mentioning it should not be considered "taboo" when it is referenced as a legitimate part of a historical incident, as it was here. Additionally, to suggest it was a "non event" completely disregards the news coverage and impact that it had on the members of the booth themselves (though for the purposes of this entry, clearly that is not a concern). The fact is there was an incident, and it was significant - especially since the group has successfully raised $30,000 to fund a lawsuit.

There isn't a single reliable source in that entire passage, and it most certainly does not warrant taking up about two-thirds of the article's text (WP:UNDUE). If you wish to include anything, you will need to base any such entry around what reliable sources say, and you should keep it in line with its importance to the Expo overall. Which is to say, not very. The story here, literally is "group got tossed from Expo after complaints". The rest is promotional puffery that has no place in an encyclopedia. Resolute 13:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

75.156.202.134 (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC) The Honeybadgers own website and entry isn't reliable? The documented fact that The Mary Sue published an article isn't reliable? (I agree The Mary Sue itself isn't necessarily a reliable publisher of fact, however the fact here is The Mary Sue did, publish an article, and the article was cited as proof of the claim that it got printed.

This is a very important incident in the history of the Expo, because it goes to the environment that the Expo produces for its exhibitors, guests, and attendees. This is a valid update, and deserves to be included.

No, as Wikipedia defines it, those sources are not reliable. You admit that yourself wrt the Mary Sue. And no, this is not a very important incident in the history of the Expo. If it was, you would not be reduced to unreliable sources like YouTube, The Mary Sue, the Vancouver Observer, etc. The Calgary Herald and Metro are a good start, however. I will help you out with how far this is going to go: "A GamerGate affiliated group called the Honeybadger Brigade rented a booth at the 2015 event, but were ejected following complaints, due to <reasons>." That's it. Because that is all that will be found in reliable sources. Resolute 14:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

75.156.202.134 14:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC) What are you trying to hide? You have completely missed my point about The Mary Sue - it isn't that their content is reliable, but that they said what they said -- meaning whether it was true, or not, they published it. It is completely fair game to say "so and so said X" and then link to where so and so said X as a source - because it proves what so-and-so said, and also proves that they said it, regardless of how true it is.

In any event, it is a legitimate inclusion, because it happened. Whether you agree, or disagree with its validity is irrelevant - it is a historical fact of the Calgary Expo, it happened, and there are two sides to the story, both of which are covered in the entry, and links to raw footage on YouTube showing proof that the police actually did visit an event sponsored by the group certainly does count as a valid citation - because it is documentable as fact, neutral in nature, and unfiltered, given the absolute lack of commentary around it.

By the way - the process is to improve entries, not delete the ones you don't like.

The process is to improve entries using reliable sources. What unreliable ones write is not relevant to us. And that is my point with respect to the Mary Sue that you are ignoring. They can say what they like, but the site cannot be used as the basis for which to add an WP:UNDUE entry to an article. Likewise, YouTube is not a reliable source. Stick with the sources Wikipedia defines as reliable and you won't have an issue. Keep edit warring and you will likely find yourself blocked. Resolute 14:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

75.156.202.134 (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC) From the Dispute Resolution section (Emphasis mine):

Follow the normal protocol When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page.

To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war.

Regarding The Mary Sue - like it or not, they published a critical article, which is what I linked. Unless you are suggesting that I need to cite "a reliable source" to prove that The Mary Sue published an article critical of something, which is just plain crazy. You are suggesting that if I report "Person A said X" and then provide concrete, absolute proof that Person A did, in fact, say X (such as a video of Person A saying X), that because X is untrue, therefore person A is unreliable, and therefore Person A never said X.

Logic doesn't work that way - Person A in this example said X, regardless of the truth of X.

The same applies to The Mary Sue citation - The Mary Sue was reported that Calgary Expo had something there. Regardless of The Mary Sue's reliability as a source of news, the fact is The Mary Sue still reported it, and it was after this report was published that the Expo opened an investigation into the booth.

However it is you, rather than me, who is engaging in this edit war, because instead of following protocol and improving the entry, leaving it in place while it gets discussed, you keep deleting it.

Removing undue promotion of a minor incident, the addition of which is based on unreliable sources, is improving the entry. And on Wikipedia, the burden is on the person seeking to add such material. It is incumbent on you to build a consensus to include. Lacking that, the material will not be added. And since you are obviously wise enough to the ways of Wikipedia to know where pages like dispute resolution are, I suggest you take it to a relevant noticeboard. Because right now, you've been challenged by two editors and have thus far failed to meet your burden. Resolute 15:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

75.156.202.134 (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC) The "failure to meet your burden" claim on your part is subjective and opinion-based. Fact: The Mary Sue posted a critical entry. Fact: A booth was evicted. Fact: The police were called to a picnic hosted by that same group. Fact: There are numerous critiques of the incident posted on YouTube. None of that is disputable.

Because the 2015 incident did happen, I think it probably appropriate to include something about it.Scbritton (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Something, sure. But that something must be supported by reliable sources and be added with proper weight to its historical importance wrt the Expo. The sentence or two proposed below is a start, provided the statements are sourced properly. Resolute 13:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Since you were so persistent in removing the previous texts, you could suggest some sources that you would consider appropriate, as the IP did, in fact, make some logical arguments for the sources that were cited. As was said - if person A said X, and then a video was shown of person A saying X, it proves that person A said X, by definition. You refused to accept The Mary Sue as a legitimate source, however the IP was not suggesting that The Mary Sue was source of decent, valid information, only that it was The Mary Sue that initially reported the GG banner was present, causing the initial flurry of criticism. Scbritton (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't work that way. If the basis of an entry is to use such unreliable sources, then the entry doesn't belong on Wikipedia in the first place. If reliable sources say the same, then use those. And yes, the IP did mention a couple - a Metro article and one from the Calgary Herald. As to why I'm not searching for said sources, it is because it is not my burning desire to add a multi-paragraph expose on a matter of trivial importance. Like I said, a couple sentences suffices for what this ultimately was, and I'm sure you're capable of finding those. Resolute 20:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Mary Sue's status as a RS is a matter of debate, but it appears that it has editorial oversight, and was co-founded by Dan Abrams, an established media figure. I wouldn't use it as the sole source to establish due weight, but I don't see any problem including it along with some of the other sources mentioned. I agree that only a few sentences would be warranted, but at a glance, it looks like this incident has had as much or more coverage than the overselling incident of 2012, which should probably be rewritten to avoid the problems described in WP:CSECTION anyway. I wouldn't really call overselling tickets a "controversy", exactly, but I guess that's debatable. Grayfell (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The chronology is (a) The banner went up. (b) The Mary Sue reported it on their website. (c) Twitter erupted in a flurry of critical tweets (d) The group was evicted (e) Twitter erupted in a flurry of tweets, as did youtube, and a number of blog sites, each detailing the various sides of the story.

Now, it's probably silly to include "a flurry of tweets" as text of any writeup, and definitely not as a "reliable source", but that's the basic chronology of the event. The interpretation of what happened is part of the realm of opinion, so that takes the focus away from documentable fact citing "reliable sources" (meaning if MetroNews, or the Calgary Herald reports that a car crashed on a highway, it's considered true) into opinion: This person said X, with a citation to the person saying it. In that event, it doesn't matter how reliable the person is. All that matters is the proof they said it. In a libel case, for example, the plaintiff doesn't need to prove the validity of the statement. All the plaintiff needs to prove is the statement was made. It is up to the defence to prove the truth of the statement or to show that the defendant didn't make it.Scbritton (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a court of law, and Wikipedia's content guidelines are very different from what you're suggesting. In order for opinions to be presented, they should either be supported by substantial, WP:SECONDARY sources, or, with caution, they can be attributed to a recognized expert. Or better yet, both. Twitter, Youtube, and blogs are all WP:UGC and should not be used as sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You miss the point - The point isn't to establish the authenticity of the information, but to attribute it to the source, which is most definitely in accordance with the letter and spirit of WP:RELY, specifically WP:NEWSORG under the "opinion" section (attributing the information to its source.) The intent isn't to establish it as fact (as it is accepted by all anyway) but the source from which the information was disseminated. I have explained this point repeatedly, in numerous different ways, to try to get the point across, but you are continually ignoring it, reverting to "The Mary Sue isn't reliable, therefore they didn't say it at all," which is completely illogical. Scbritton (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Addition

This is a draft of the entry and will need updates and improvements
The 2015 Expo saw a controversial eviction of a booth which displayed a GamerGate banner. This occurred after a member of the group who has rented the space spoke at a forum in response a rhetorical question posed by the panelists. A local feminist publication also reported on the banner, and numerous critical tweets about the GamerGate logo surfaced.

Supporters of the group counter that the reasons for the eviction were unfounded and was based solely on the opinions expressed by the group.

Way too many words to watch: "Controversial", "A local feminist publication", "Supporters of the group counter", "numerous critical tweets". None of this is WP:NPOV. Please explain what happened consistent with how it has been described by independent sources. Value judgments and opinions would need to be clearly attributed, and in this case, that is unlikely to meet due weight. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think reporting both sides of a story violates a neutral point of view. There is obviously a dispute going on between the Expo and the Honeybadgers Brigade (the group that was evicted), and there are two sides to that story. The initial critique was way too long, but it's likely fair game, since it's fresh in the news, to include the two sides to the story which then maintains the neutrality by definition. Scbritton (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Both sides of the story implies that there is only two. This is simplifying a complicated event, and creating a false balance, see WP:BALANCE: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence". Additionally, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so the freshness of sources is mostly irrelevant, and the incident should not be treated differently from older information. In practice, this line is often blurred, but coverage of this incident has already almost trickled to a halt, which suggests that it's not of enduring significance to the Expo. Grayfell (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

In terms of reliable source coverage, there was never more than just a trickle. The short articles noting they were tossed out was pretty much all that was ever mentioned. Resolute 20:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"as Wikipedia defines it, those sources are not reliable " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_(2015_film)#cite_note-9 I'll just leave this here. I don't think you can say an article is reliable in one place but not another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4702:4020:D05B:C8C9:57D8:F3A1 (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources for 2015

Still lacking a section for the expulsion in spite of news sources. Before bothering to construct anything, perhaps step 1 should be to come to agreement over what sources we can use to make it. For example, opinions on these:

• 17 April 2015 Rumours of #GamerGate booth at Calgary Expo have fans up in arms - Calgary Herald
• 20 April 2015 Booth with GamerGate logo expelled from Calgary Comic Expo - Vancouver Observer

Not sure if others would qualify. --64.228.90.1 (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The former would be a good source. I would personally very much not consider the Vancouver Observer reliable, however. And given the expulsion of the group was also noted in the Herald, avoiding it should not be an issue. I would also reiterate that a section on this is not warranted, though if you can construct a small paragraph on it using agreed to sources, that would certainly merit inclusion. Likewise, any other non-gamergate info you wish to add about the event's history. Resolute 17:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)