Talk:PC Master Race

Someone removed the Eurogamer Interview and all references to the interviewee (the creator of the PC Master Race Subreddit)

Interview in question: http://www.eurogamer.pt/articles/2014-10-31-entrevista-a-pedro19-o-homem-por-tras-da-pc-master-race

Just feels strange to me that user PeterTheFourth would remove all mentions to the Eurogamer interview discussed earlier on this talk page, as well as all references to the interviewee, the creator of the pc master race subreddit because the editor doesn't believe he "is a notable or experienced enough person".

PeterTheFourth did this in various edits. First, removed the quote added for the reason quoted above, then removed more references to the name, then removed the Eurogamer Article altogether because it just wasn't linking to anywhere after his previous edits.

As expressed by Wikinium earlier on this talk page:

"The link provided is an interview done by Eurogamer. In the interview, the creator of the PC Master Race subreddit is interviewed and talks about the rise of popularity of the term, the subreddit, and the ideology/information behind the people, companies, and gamers that use the term. It has quite a bit of usable content that could be used in this article - but the interview isn't in English."

The person in question created the PC master race subreddit and arguably was essential to the popularization of the term PC Master Race, so I can't find any good reason to exclude all mentions of an article from a good source interviewing him about the creation, meaning and popularization of the term, especially when Eurogamer calls him "Pedro19, the man behind PC Master Race".

The reason behind PeterTheFourth's first of these edits (that the quote was too large) seems reasonable to me.

I've reverted his changes and edited the quote to a more reasonable size.

Would be very interested to hear about everyone else's thoughts, especially PeterTheFourth and Wikinium.

Saganstar (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Honestly it looked like a bit of shameless promotion of Pedro- if the quote is trimmed down a lot (perhaps even just integrated in the main text rather than having its own box?) that'd be fine.

PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I trimmed the quote down even more with a recent edit. Seems short enough and straight to the point being handled in the section (popularization of the term), don't you think?. Saganstar (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep, sure, length seems pretty reasonable now. Not sure about the box quote, but I'm glad you've trimmed it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The Escapist video

The sentence the term "Glorious PC Gaming Master Race" was first used by writer Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw in 2008 is not supported by a third-party source. Can anyone provide another source which it's not the video itself? If nobody steps up to fix, i'm obliged to add the Failed verification tag. Hakken (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Primary sourcing is not be same as failing WP:V. At worse, the word "first" can be removed. -- ferret (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

This claim clearly fails WP:V because nowhere in the source it's said that this term was first used by Croshaw. Furthermore, it's supported only by a primary source video made by Croshaw himself, thus going against WP:PRIMARY. We cannot have statements like this unless secondary sources validate the claim. Hakken (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

There's this, but it's also written by Croshaw. There's also the subreddit wiki written by Pedro, but it's user-generated. We don't really have a way of finding out whether or not he was the first person to publicly use the term "PC Master Race", and I'll rewrite the origin section to remove the word "first" in just a moment. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. "First" was unverified and potentially original thought just because the video was published in 2008. I see no problem to leave the video there, despite being a primary source, but it shows readers that the term was used by a known journalist, at a time when it was not employed extensively. EDIT: The name of the section also needs to be modified, since it suggests that the origin of the term comes from the video. Hakken (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Changed to History, which is true enough. -- ferret (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that thesesources already in the article do claim that the term came from the original video. -- ferret (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, in that case i think we should revert the edits, but instead of referencing the video, which should be limited to cover the quotation, we must add said third-party secondary sources in order to support the aforementioned claim. Hakken (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hakken and Ferret: Do you think "Reappropriation and popularization" should be a subsection of "History"? It's basically the 'what happened next' section. Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

If we revert the edits (including section name) and attach the other three sources to the original statement, then no. -- ferret (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above. If we are going to change it back, there will be clearly two separate sections. Hakken (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Mmhmm, same. If we keep it as history I'd support a subsection, but if it goes back to origin (as suggested by both of you) I'd support separate sections. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Reappropriation?

First of all, this is overall a quality article. I could find plenty of articles, about things which actually matter, which haven't been handled half as well.

I just want to ask if it is "reappropriation" when an elitist group hear a guy call them the "Glorious PC Gaming Master Race", understand his reasons and concur (sans some value judgements), and proudly adopt the title he coined? It might be better just to call it "appropriation". As soon as you invent this word 'reappropriation' it creates a vacuum where people can read into the 're' part: to me, that word makes it sound like the writer (of the wikipedia article) is claiming that the GPCGMR have changed the meaning of the phrase by adopting it. If that were the case, coining this word might be a shorthand to help us to understand that. However, I'm not convinced that they have, in the process of adopting the phrase or subsequently, altered the meaning of the title. Croshaw accurately described their position (I claim, based on the information in the article) and they adopted the phrase because it sounds awesome and they love it. Some of the Glorious PC Master Race may take their responsibility as stewards of gaming more or less seriously, and they may disagree among themselves about how inclusive and accessible or restricted and pure the community should be, but they do all feel superior to console peasants: I think that is the crux of the matter, and I think Croshaw and anyone sane who identifies as belonging to the Glorious PC Master Race agree on that. Therefore, I think the GPCGMR 'appropriated' the term when they crystallised around it, rather than changing it in any way as the new word "reappropriation" may imply to those reading intuitively and without grounding in the topic.

Maybe I should have just changed the word to 'appropriation' on my own authority, but then hell, I just really enjoy typing 'Glorious PC Gaming Master Race". It would feel even better if it weren't for the existence of EA. I think maybe it's late to close the gate on the purity of PC gaming. Those pricks are suffocating everything. How many people who work with them really want to, I wonder? There are so many crap PC games nowadays, and it feels like there must be talented people out there waiting to collaborate to create better games, who can't meet and organise, and can't afford to start on AAA games. Christ, I know there are better story writers out there than the big studios use. I could write better story than Bethesda. I think their narrative must be written by child-slaves in Bangladesh.

Don't tell me about how there are heaps of good games out there by boutique studios. I don't give a shit. Stylised artsy games, clever games, funny games... they may prove something about the creator, they may be entertaining, but if they are the best game you've played all year then something is wrong. Collaboration is how you create games that knock the wind out of people, games which they happily sink hundreds of hours into. Tetris and other low-hanging fruit have been picked. Progress at the highest level of gaming comes from story, then game design, then story, then more game design. And all the game design probably needs recondite mathematics and computer science, lots of letters I don't understand, like API, and lots of money, so that those boffins and writers can afford to be there instead of somewhere else making an elder scrolls sequel or a semi-pay-to-play Battlefield sequel.

OK this has been inappropriate. My second paragraph stands.

Rob·out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.202.150 (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2017‎ (UTC)

The first paragraph of that section (which is sourced), along with the (overly) lengthy quote from petro, clearly indicate that the meaning of the term was changed, from its negative connotation (Ben was literally referring to Nazism) to a more positive one. Reappropriation is also linked, and clearly indicates correct use of the term. -- ferret (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

ferret, no, that is not the meaning of "meaning". I completely agree "reappropriation" is correct, not a "made-up" word. It's been used to describe how "queer" is now promoted by the gay community, which was modelled on how "black" was embraced by the African American community(and then the global community). Back to "meaning", though. The new usage still refers to the ideas of racial superiority, but it's used ironically. That's not a change in "meaning". Croshaw used the term sarcastically, the community uses it ironically. By the way, I'd point out that nearly all ethnicities have started with theories of racial superiority to other groups. The concept of a "Master Race" wasn't invented by the Nazis, and note that the English term is used, not German. Some of the discomfort may come from a desire to pin this theory to Nazis and Nazis only. And the original "Glorious" part doesn't sound German at all. But it's a rather modern view that racial superiority doesn't exist, and in many parts of the world such theories are still acceptable. While Croshaw's statement about Nazism "being forgotten" is good, and should be kept in the article, I think the truth is that it indicates more an acceptance of the fact that all our ancestors had these theories, and it doesn't necessarily refer to Nazi beliefs alone, which is being in denial. Basically, I'm saying the exact opposite of what the Croshaw said in reaction to Tyler. I'm ranting here a bit, like the OP, I don't mean to direct this all to ferret. But, I'd also like to point out that the idea that PC fans constitute a "race" in any way is patently absurd. No serious thought about the community being anything but multiracial is possible. I don't think we should worry about "kids today" taking it seriously. Obviously there will occasionally be some bad judgement in its use, but complaining about younger people misunderstanding it as a group is a "grumpy old man" complaint. Cuvtixo (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Geez, I imagine my "ironic and sarcastic" remarks will again be deleted by ferret or Sergecross73, but I'm not going to engage with any editor who claims my edits are "disruptive" without further explanation, and uses that alone as an excuse to revert changes. Tell me WHY it's disruptive please, or rather, tell the other editors, I'm not going to pay any attention when ferret tells me he has the authority to ban me (technically), You certainly don't have the moral authority!!! and I think your behavior is exemplary of why Wikipedia is substandard, Jimmy Wales should have stepped down long ago, and neither deserves any financial support. It should never have lost to h2g2!!! Oh, sorry, am I being "disruptive"? Are you going to ban me for that BS? Cuvtixo (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It's really simple. Point out which reliable source in use in this article says that it's used sarcastically and ironically. If none of the sources make this claim, then we can't include it. -- ferret (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

• Glorious PC Gaming Master Race.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)