Talk:Elsagate

Regarding the "Psychological effect on children" section

I've decided to remove this section in its entirely for the time being until concrete case studies are performed on the psychological effect on children upon exposure to Elsagate-related videos. The only citation listed in the entire section was itself based on shaky ground, as it had quoted random Reddit users on the /r/Elsagate subreddit without further interaction, dialogue with the press, or any verification of credibility. I believe the premise of this topic is a very important one to provide the most information to the reader on the topic, but until professional case studies or coverage by credible media outlets are performed I stand on the notion that it is most important to omit this section for now. -- Jeremy Ahn ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding my removal of content added by Paintspot: I have removed the anecdotal evidence from subreddit as it seems inappropriate and unencyclopaedic. However, I have kept the views of the professor cited by NYT as this seems notable (although it would be preferable to incorporate this into the main article text IMO). J.M.Ike (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Article title

Propose renaming of the article in concordance with WP title policy (WP:NPOVNAME; see "Antennagate"). A more specific title (something like 2017 YouTube Kids controversy) would be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.129.60 (talk) 06:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I think "Elsagate" has become familiar and specific enough. We have a Pizzagate conspiracy theory page and we don't need to call it "Democratic Party child-sex ring controversy theory".

Also, the controversy does not only focus on YouTube Kids (although that's a notable aspect) but on YouTube as a whole. If we are to rename the page, we might use something like "YouTube children's content controversy" or "YouTube children's videos controversy" (I just created the redirects). I'm not sure it's necessary to specify "2017" because it's a recent subject, which might continue in 2018. However, I think "Elsagate" is a suitable name, but maybe that's just me. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the IP editor: I think this page should definitely be renamed. A lot of the reliable sources reporting on the subject don't use the term Elsagate, and it seems to go beyond that anyway – issues such as webcam videos of girls getting sexualized comments are clearly within the scope of an article discussing this controversy, but as to whether they're "Elsagate" as such is debatable. Pizzagate is different as that's the term that was used by a number of reliable outlets. J.M.Ike (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources address the phenomenon without using the terme Elsagate, where there also are reliable sources (mainstream media) that do.

The subject of child safety on YouTube goes indeed beyond inappropriate videos being labeled as children's content. The broader controversy should indeed be mentioned in the main YouTube article - and it currently is - but I wonder if we should mention it here in detail ? "Elsagate" is something relatively specific (i.e. a flood of inappropriate videos masquerading as child-friendly content, which are now being deleted) while child safety on YouTube (and more generally on the Internet) is a much wider concern, which will probably go beyond the current controversy.

We may rename the article, but I think that should involve restructuring and expanding so it includes all issues about child safety on YouTube (i.e. improper "Elsagate" videos, improper content with actual children like in the DaddyOFive case, comments from pedophiles on some videos, etc). I'm not quite sure this would be a good idea since the issue is already being addressed in the main YouTube article, which has mentions of DaddyOFive and Elsagate. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I've been struggling to decide on this myself. Elsagate appears to refer more to the name of a community that conducts nonscientific research on the videos, usually as a hobby, and that name appears to have started referring to all videos fitting in the general category of child-friendly in appearance videos that are suggestive and inappropriate in nature, since these videos have no strict name. However, it is true that we've reached the point of no return where most people who are familiar with the phenomenon immediately refer to it as Elsagate. In conclusion I would prefer sticking to the current article title as reputable sources in the mainstream media have referred to it as Elsagate and at this point it appears like the name has stuck for good. -- Jeremy Ahn ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

That's also, more or less, what I think. Here is an article published two days ago by Forbes, which shows that the term has become mainstream.

As for the content of the article, since the subject is fairly recent, we might need to think about the definition of its scope. As I said above, if we do a page about the broader subject of child safety of YouTube, we may need to rewrite the article, and include other notorious cases like DaddyOFive. However, that might look like original research. I think it would be better if this page stays focused on the subject of "Elsagate" (i.e., the flood of weird "children's" videos) which helped raise awareness of the child safety problem. IMHO, said problem (including pedophile's comments) should remain for now a section in the main YouTube article and be mentioned here tangentially until we have reputable/scientific sources covering the whole problem. Any opinions on this ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I have moved the info about the videos circulating on the dark web, the Russian keywords, etc, on the YouTube main article. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I suppose that would seem like the most logical thing to do at the moment. If needs be, we can always split out the section if it becomes too long for the YouTube article. J.M.Ike (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is the title italicized? --User123o987name (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

YouTube autofill suggesting child sex?

Should the new autofill controversy be mentioned in this article? [1] (subscription), [2] [3]

Additionally, here is content regarding a Vietnamese man fined for Elsagate-style videos. Seems noteworthy for the article. J.M.Ike (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I just added the info about the Vietnamese channel owner being fined.

The thing about pedophiles commenting on some videos is already mentioned here but I'm not sure we should refer to that more than tangentially. It's definitely part of the broader controversy about child safety on Youtube, but it appears that many pedophiles were commenting about videos featuring kids, and not necessarily about "Elsagate" content. I'd say it would be better to mention the autofill thing here rather than in the Elsagate page. Likewise, the content you added about Toy Freaks' earnings and about videos with kids circulating on the "dark web" is useful, but IMHO it would be better to have it in the main page rather than here.

Also, do you think we should keep the "pedophilia" category ? Elsagate is definitely about child safety as it involves kids being subjected to creepy, inappropriate content. But so far we don't know if it has any real connections with pedophile rings or whatever. There is a "pedophile" conspiracy theory about Elsagate, but as far as we know, the whole thing is more about people making money by posting crap on YouTube. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It would be better off not to tie the Elsagate movement with conspiracy theories, as major figures in the movement (particularly the moderators of the /r/Elsagate subreddit) have all distanced the community from them. Pedophilia is most definitely another, unrelated topic. -- Jeremy Ahn ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It's normal to mention those conspiracy theories but we should not give them undue weight. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd argue about your Reddit comment. I've been on the /r/Elsagate subreddit for a bit and there still seems to be a worrying level of conspiracy theorists who want to link this to Pizzagate or something similar (for example, the modpost there cites the Vigilant Citizen amongst more respectable articles, as well as some other bizarre theories).

And yeah, this definitely needed to be out of the paedophilia category, especially since you (rightly IMO) moved some of the content regarding paedophilia to the main YouTube article. They do seem to be unrelated topics; my point was to claim that people are making a link between the two. But I suppose that could be seen as POV-pushing/undue weight, which wasn't my intention. I do think the "Internet manipulation and propaganda" category should be included on the page, though. J.M.Ike (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure about that last category. Any opinions on the matter would be welcome.

Anyway, it seems that we agree that while the existing conspiracy theories linking Elsagate to pedophilia need to be mentioned (quite simply because they show how people are currently reacting) we should not give them undue weight nor use the pedophilia category until we are sure that there is a link. I just removed it. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, do you think we can now remove the template saying that the page needs "more clarification" ? The article may of course be improved, but I think it one understands pretty clearly what the subject is. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the article needs more clarification, but it really does need to condense its content IMO. J.M.Ike (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the template then. I'm not quite sure how we can condense the content, though. Maybe we have to wait for other sources written with the benefit of hindsight... Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

look at this filth and tell me it wasn't made by russian pedophiles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32X45J-MRUE&t=2m42s --Dinosaurdracula (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

NNPOV & Moral Panic

This article is full of vaguely-worded, sweepingly general POV statements that are opinions not facts. It is full of weasel-worded phrases and it treats the opinions stated in various source articles as unquestioned facts.

The article also really needs to include a discussion of the moral panic (not even mentioned) aspects of this story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.158.89 (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out that the article does not even mention the concept of parody.

I'm sure there are plenty of people such as yourself who would have liked to see this YouTube content legitimized with gaslighting and appeals to "Moral Panic", however none of the sources currently cited offer any argument that this is an over-reaction to this phenomenon, and I don't believe Wikipedia is obligated to provide that sort of counter argument to a clear consensus amongst its sources for the sake of defending this sort of filth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:AA1F:F83A:2DFD:14CF:8BE5:52BF (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible source

https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/specials/technophile/youtube-and-content-that-is-unfit-for-children-restricted-mode-filters/article24988134.ece

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Article needs updating

As evidenced from recent events on YouTube (i.e. the 'Momo Challenge' hoax and sexual predators in comment sections), this article needs updating - the Elsagate phenomenon didn't stop in 2018 either, as discussion of these videos and the distribution of the videos themselves continues to date.--BrayLockBoy (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, there seems to be a grammatical error in the introduction: "..., public awareness of the phenomenon grew in 2017, as it mainstream media started to report about child safety on YouTube." "As it mainstream media"? 199.58.98.69 (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Webs & Tiaras Wiki

Webs & Tiaras is not Elsagate. Remove all mentions of Webs and Tiaras Whatsfordinner77 (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The lede states and I quote "Elsagate is a neologism referring to the controversy surrounding videos on YouTube and YouTube Kids that are categorized as "child-friendly," but which contain themes that are inappropriate for children. Most videos under this classification are notable for presenting content such as violence, sexual situations, fetishes, drugs, alcohol, injections, toilet humor, and dangerous or upsetting situations and activities.[1]",

A quick Google search would confirm they were indeed a part of it so as such they should remain. –Davey2010^Talk 10:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Origin

I think we need to note about the origin of elsagate and its precursors that occoured prior to 2014 or mid 2010's.Kaithehedgefox (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)kaithehedgefoxKaithehedgefox (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Lead section weirdness

The lead section's last sentence seems very questionable to me - the one about "many people" claiming that "continued viewing of such videos can 'clearly' damage and 'rewire [children's] psyche' to be desensitized" (whatever that means). This honestly reads like some sort of Youtube/Reddit original research nonsense based on bogus claims by drama channels ; I'm unsure what the policy is concerning these things, not being a regular editor, so I left it in, albeit with a couple templates. 2A01:CB04:B27:A100:95EE:C0EE:1D30:5722 (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be a case of Wikipedia:Weasel words left in and slipped under the radar. Good catch! WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

See also: Happy Tree Friends???

Honestly fits more with things like overtly gory My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic fan animations and creepypastas (as much as it's a random comparison, kids were exposed to such violent content too) - it just looks cute for the sake of going "ha ha the characters die in awful and gruesome ways" (but the animation isn't spared from random content farms assuming these are for kids).

I do feel bad for anyone who used to watch it as a child, but since it's supposed to be an adult series, I removed it. That would also be the case with mentioning series like Crossing Swords in the "See also" section - it wouldn't make sense if it's not for kids on purpose. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The New Elsagate

I heard Elsagate is come back around 2020s. NIKO (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Elsagate as of 2023

Today, these horrifying videos still exist, however nowadays they feature Characters from the 2018 game Among us, Characters like Mommy long legs and Huggy wuggy from Poppy playtime (2022), Characters from Bluey doing sexual acts and sometimes Characters from indie horror games like Rainbow friends and DOORS. They also feature topics like the Backrooms due to it's rising popularity from a depiction by Kane pixels. while the claymation method is not used anymore, a lot of the videos are also minecraft animations. Ilovelearning123 (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I already added them NIKO (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nikon1803: Thank you for wanting to improve and update this article. However, tour edits have introduced a lot of content which is not reliably sourced. The Forbes article seems okay (although it should be attributed to the specific contributor at all times), but wegotthiscovered does not seem to be reliable. This should be removed until a reliable source is given for its inclusion, see WP:RS. Thank you. GnocchiFan (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

GOCE copy edit

The piece was generally well-written. I tightened up the prose. I also removed the reference to B.o.B. because I thought it was undue. I also think the mentions to the radio show, the Medium article, and the random youtuber making a video about this topic might be undue as well. I recommend reviewing MOS:OL. The effects on children section could also use expansion. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Resurgence

We've seen a resurgence in Elsagate content. and as such this article needs to be edited. SeeV2 (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@SeeV2: do you have any sources supporting this? Elli (talk | contribs) 02:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

What happened to the Resurgence section?

I can't see it anymore. 5.90.133.88 (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It was removed because the only sources cited were either Reddit or YouTube. I've added it back now with better sources. --Jamesandedward7 (talk) 06:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

This needs more serious sources that claim a 'resurgence'. The Australian news articles either do not mention Elsagate or do not go in depth enough and both do not mention a 'resurgence'. We Got This Covered is unreliable per the list of perennial sources and self-generated sources like YouTube and Reddit are not either. Sadly there is an effort to claim a resurgence (mostly by perennial problem IPs that also add fancruft about cartoons and etc.) wizzito | say hello! 21:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, since that there are more Elsagate videos, I saw an article about this cartoons that use Five Nights at Freddy's or Poppy's Playtime, and another article that said the creators of this videos used Minecraft. The second one cited Elsagate, the first one i'm not sure.

May you add it? 158.47.240.181 (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I found it, it's https://www.wired.com/story/youtube-minecraft-among-us-disturbing-videos/ and https://www.newsweek.com/violent-youtube-cartoons-exploit-children-favorite-horror-characters-1696854. 5.90.128.124 (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the Resurgence page

The page needs to be updated, can someone find other sources? 2001:B07:6461:80A1:7D99:6373:77A6:9374 (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Portmanteau

Elsagate is presented as a portmanteau. I recently changed it to "combination". I forgot to include a summary so I will explain my intentions here.

If "-gate" is considered a derivational suffix, rather than a clipped word, which it is in the article, it is, by definition, not a portmanteau. It's a derivative. I chose "combination" as a more neutral and easy to understand term.

If "portmanteau" is preferred, the article should emphasize the fact that "-gate" is a clipping of "Watergate" and is in fact not a suffix. However, I believe it's more feasible to analyze the morpheme as a bound derivational suffix at this point, given its productivity. Ennocb (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)