Talk:James Desborough (game designer)

Self promotion

There's no intention of self promotion here, but 'straight from the horse's mouth' is a good way to provide basic data. Should anyone wish to edit, fact check etc they are of course welcome to and I'll help in any way I can. However the article was rather scant on information and citations before, which I have attempted to provide. Vandalism is, of course, a concern given various controversies, though I believe including them is evidence of good faith that this is not about self-promotion - JD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.178.128 (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If you are James Desborough, you should review WP:COI before continuing to edit articles about yourself, companies you have worked for, people you know, products you have worked on, etc. 24.1.246.250 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Have done. Given that I mostly just provided citations and links I don't see a problem and again, I ensured to include negative information as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.178.128 (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough! 24.1.246.250 (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we find a source for the 'Grim'?

A lot of RPG designers seem to have nicknames. I know that James Desborough gets called James 'Grim' Desborough. But I think it would be good to find a source that confirms this. Better still, it would be good to find a source that explains the story behind the nickname. Big Mac (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

His "Roll For Insight" video via here should cover that. I realize this is years after the fact and just him replying to a question. Does this work? 2600:4041:43A8:B300:84FA:5C63:C52:4651 (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Controversies section of article

The Controversies section of this article is bordering on the "contentious material" zone. I think we need to make sure that it is properly sourced. I've added a second source to back up the first. Big Mac (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Notability?

Why is there even an article on his guy? He's barely known inside the RPG industry (let alone outside of it), and that isn't for any work he's produced, it's for the deliberately controversial things he posts online in order to try and stir up publicity. danzig138 (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This accusation isn't true, btw. 'Controversial' opinions aren't necessarily held only in order to garner attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.178.128 (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

One can become notable solely for espousing controversial views, or in fact, from not doing anything notable at all. Wikipedia merely cares that one has been noted. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Another Link

Found an interview with him:

https://argosymagazine.co.uk/2016/11/08/interview-with-rpg-designer-james-grim-desborough/

Can the "needs additional citations" box finally be removed from the article. It's been there for ages and nobody is updating this article. I'm not an experienced wikipedia editor so I don't exactly know how to properly edit his article, but I trust that some of you people are, so you can properly cite the link I provided and remove the box. Hopladamus (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It is probably fair to remove the tag at this point. 208.47.202.254 (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems that nobody except you saw this update, because neither the link I provided nor the tag are being addressed. Do you know how to update this article? Hopladamus (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

There are more stories about him on Geek Native: https://www.geeknative.com/?s=James+Desborough Hopladamus (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The article's not protected (or even semi-protected) so you could "be bold" and make any of these changes yourself. I have reservations them personally, as we're inching into controversial territory, if he's more notable for his gender-politics than his authorship, and the only available sources are of the "use with caution and only for matters of straightforward fact" grade. (i.e., not reliable secondary sources.) I'm not sure if the Al Jazeera link was better (was it news, opinion, or blog?), but in any case the link seems to be dead, possibly irreparably so. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Malicious rollbacks

This article relates to a controversial figure, as a result there are legitimate edits being rolled back presumably by someone with a stake in the controversy. 90.255.149.129 (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

As a matter of the general policy on biographies of living persons we want to take extra care to ensure that biographical details are properly cited to reliable sources. Especially so with regard to something as serious as accusations of war crimes. Social media sites without any kind of editorial review are not reliable sources. Twitter is emphatically not a reliable source for anything, full stop. If there are actual news articles covering these charges, please cite them.

Never mind the 'war crimes' nonsense, someone keeps rolling back simple biographical details, despite them being sourced, and an updated image, without regard to what they are pulling down.SivaGoth (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It is also a general principle that one should assume good faith of one's fellow editors. Accusing those who disagree with your edits of having an agenda without evidence can be construed as a personal attack which is not acceptable here. And as I'm the one who's been doing the reverting, speaking only for myself, I'm pretty sure my opinion of this guy is actually pretty much in line with yours. But this is not about opinions, it is about Wikipedia policy. --Finngall ^talk 02:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The edit is factual, Desborough has been accused of war crimes and the reference shows an accusation along with photographic evidence backing up the accusation. You've sent me something about the three revert policy, given that you have reverted my edit 3 times does this mean you'll stop reverting it now? There should be an assumption of good faith in one's fellow editors, it seems you assume some intent in my edits or you would not be reverting them. Do we have to wait for a news source to pick up on someone nobody cares about being accused of things (they won't) or can we state that they were accused? It seems the latter is appropriate here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.255.149.129 (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Do we have to wait for a news source to pick up on someone nobody cares about being accused of things… Yes. Period. No reliable source, no inclusion. --Finngall ^talk 03:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Someone is also, however, rolling back basic biographical information and an updated photo. The accusations of misogyny etc also don't come from reliable sources, yet are included. That may be what's giving the impression of bias, however silly the 'war crimes' and 'baby eating' are. SivaGoth (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• James Grim Desborough Portrait.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit War

Introducing balance to what has been a biased article should not be controversial, the extended quote following the 'misogyny' claims is from the exact same source and provides that balance.

People have copyright to their own image unless specifically giving up those rights in the UK. So far as I am aware those rights have not been signed over as Desborough has used them in various places. Can seek confirmation on this but it should be removed from speedy deletion.

This article has previously been flagged over significance and has passed examination. An Origins Award winner who has worked for the largest companies in the space certainly seems notable, and involvement in various controversies only increases that notability.

Rather than rolling back improvements, make your own improvement such as moving citations or whatever it is you think makes it work better, rather than simply deleting any updates, improvements and modifications to bias that are being done. SivaGoth (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Regarding alleged bias, the quote is used to explain why some have petitioned to have his work dropped. That said, given the poor quality of the source, I deleted the whole sentence.
• Regarding copyright, it wouldn't be sufficient for Desborough to have copyright, he'll need to specifically release the picture under a free license (see here for further detail) for it to be usable at Wikipedia.
• Regarding notability, he would need significant coverage in reliable sources, and this article doesn't show that, hence my submission to AfD.

BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you suggest if industry news sources and sites aren't considered reliable? I can try to contact and get affirmation, if you remove the delete request to give me time to do so. The award winning aspect is listed here (Munchkin's Guide) so considered reliable elsewhere on wp 2000 Origins Award winners SivaGoth (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, reliable sources are independent, with evidence of editorial oversight. Here's a page that discusses sources that frequently come up, to give you an idea of what's a reliable source or not. You could also check out the WikiProject for table games here. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

So things like... industry news sites then. The page has now been completely re-vandalised and it's clear moderation is a joke as well. Fuck it. SivaGoth (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the more reputable and well-known, the better. For video games, that would be things like IGN, Kotaku, Game Informer, etc. If you think Geek Native should be considered an RS, then I suggest you bring it up at the Reliable Sources noticeboard, WP:RSN. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Naming of "Career" Section (and content)

@BubbaJoe123456, know you've been actively involved in this page for a few months. Do you think that the section title for "Career" makes sense here? (the content seems to be all of the place and not follow a coherent flow) Editchecker123 (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)