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)

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)

Made these additions to the page, they seem to get the point across and are reliable enough. Thet00nedl00n (talk) 00:58, 6 July 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)

IncrediGate

Should we make a page about it? 2001:B07:6461:80A1:47C6:7576:A7CB:DA02 (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Incredigate is too niche and is not recognized by YouTube corporate and has only been brought up by several YouTubers. I suggest not. Thet00nedl00n (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Since they added other articles to Resurgence, we could add images about TADC and Hazbin Hotel Elsagate took from YouTube or Google to prove that this shows are used too. 158.47.240.181 (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Consult page moderators first, I suggest. Thet00nedl00n (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

TADC and Poppy Playtime ElsaGate

https://www.androidauthority.com/nsfw-content-kids-youtube-thumbnails-3470254/ I found this article a while ago, while I was on holiday. It says that ElsaGate TADC and Poppy Playtime (new chapter) themed videos exist on the platform. Should it be added? 2001:B07:6461:80A1:A485:5E90:A2C9:8337 (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I second the idea of mentioning The Amazing Digital Circus in this article. I'm a fan of TADC and am absolutely disgusted by all the elsagate cringe on YouTube (a channel called "Pomni - Minecraft" comes to mind when I think of TADC-related elsagate), and thus I believe that TADC should be included in the article. BombCraft8 ^{(talk) (contributions)} 23:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, just add the article. 5.90.130.54 (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It's better if we write that Gooseworx addressed this too 5.90.130.54 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Did anyone modified the page with the articles I put? 2001:B07:6461:80A1:D4B5:1740:7B2F:DCD (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Not yet BombCraft8 ^{(talk) (contributions)} 23:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You could add it yourself if you wanted to, I'm too lazy to and I'm supposed to be doing homework BombCraft8 ^{(talk) (contributions)} 23:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh ok 158.47.240.181 (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I modified the article now 158.47.240.181 (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok BombCraft8 ^{(talk) (contributions)} 13:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Good or bad? 188.210.239.75 (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The edits are good but probably need a bit of copyediting BombCraft8 ^{(talk) (contributions)} 13:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Wdym by copyediting? 158.47.240.181 (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:CE BombCraft8 ^{(talk) (contributions)} 14:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but while I'm by no means an experienced editor, I have several issues here.

I have issues with the source you've used, and with the content you've added; more largely though, I have issues with the "Elsagate in the 2020s" section as a whole, which seems to me like an attempt to imply there's a documented "resurgence" of this phenomenon. I also have issues with the article more generally, but I'm mainly going to focus on this section.

• Firstly, just to be clear, "Android Authority" does not, at a glance, look like a reliable source to me. It, at best, comes off as a self-published source (WP:SPS) that heavily relies on promotional content; however, it'd be more accurate in my eyes to characterize it as a content farm that does junk food news. This means that, if we were to include what you want to include, you'd need a better source. That said, this is at a glance, and it is my opinion, which may be wrong. If someone genuinely wants to argue this is a reliable source, I'm willing to hear, or ask the Reliable sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN).

• Secondly, I think all editors contributing here could stand to read both the general notability guidelines (WP:GNG), and more widely the guidelines on notability (WP:N). A look at "What Wikipedia is not" (WP:NOT), and particularly the section on "indiscriminate information" (WP:INDISCRIMINATE), would also be welcome. Just because there are a few different articles mentioning some lone incidents of inappropriate thumbnails or videos being spotted in the wild, does not mean that there's some documented "Elsagate II" here, or that these incidents or articles merit inclusion.
• Thirdly, and relatedly, I question the value of this section as a whole, and whether it should be used in the lead to claim some sort of "continuation" of Elsagate.

The statement opening the section, "Although YouTube initiated a crackdown on Elsagate content in 2017, numerous videos of a similar nature began appearing on the platform in the 2020s", implies that these are not only directly comparable to the original phenomenon, but also that they're new appearances. Neither of these suggestions seem supported by the Wired article from 2021, or any of the subsequent sources.

Wired doesn't claim these channels necessarily operated only starting from the 2020s, or that these videos are only dated from then, and furthermore nuances any direct comparison to Elsagate with "These concerning videos attached to games on YouTube are not a direct Elsagate repeat. For one, the thumbnails are the most obviously shocking aspect of them. Also, they’re not on YouTube Kids, which is where YouTube is attempting to funnel its under-13 population. But with sexually abusive Minecraft videos just two clicks away from YouTube’s homepage, it calls into question whether YouTube has done all it can." I'd also add Wired doesn't just link this to Elsagate - it presents the videos as a wider issue Youtube has with kid-friendly content, which either predates the 2020s or has nothing to do with "Elsagate" as it's outlined by our article, or both (such as via statements like "In 2019, WIRED reported on how softcore child pornography videos were receiving millions of views on YouTube" or "In 2020, a WIRED investigation revealed that YouTube Gaming’s Live section was dominated by scams, which regularly racked up thousands of concurrent viewers").

As for the other sources, Newsweek doesn't even mention Elsagate, and while Android Authority does mention it in passing, it specifically, like Wired, distinguishes it from a direct Elsagate repeat via some notable differences, but also more damningly, doesn't make the bold claim that this is a symptom of some newer rash of "Elsagate"-like videos, as our section seems to imply.

It's also worth noting that the incidents are few and far-between; there's a break of one year between the first two incidents, and then this latest one happened more than two years following the last. It makes it even harder to suggest some sort of wider, consistent, phenomenon of resurgence at play here.

So yes, there's a comparison with Elsagate, but to claim it justifies the opening lines, and particularly the "numerous videos of a similar nature began..." sentence, or any similar one suggesting that there's another Elsagate here, is pretty much unacceptable WP:SYNTH in my eyes. I'm not necessarily opposed to something like a section titled "In the 2020s", with "Although Elsagate triggered a purge by Youtube, similar content remains on the platform, and Youtube's policies and actions in moderating content for children have continued to come under scrutiny", but it needs to avoid stating, or even implying, things that the sources don't say.

Part of the issue, honestly, is the confusing concept of "Elsagate" itself, and whether it itself respects the notability guidelines, which I'll address below.

• Because fourthly, it's worth noting that "Elsagate", as a phenomenon, looks to me fairly loosely defined.

It seems to qualify:

1. Videos using the for-children marketing tools, that are actually not child-friendly at all;

2. Evidently not child-friendly videos, which don't use these tools, but that are related to or are set in child-friendly content or media;

3. Any channel, that seems to host real content of child abuse (or something qualified as such), like Toy Freaks;

4. The reactions and communities of people talking about this, and the controversy concerning these various incidents.

Indeed, the lead section opens with its definition as a controversy, and while much of the article concerns instances, documented by the press, of questionable content (and furor surrounding it), the "Elsagate" moniker itself seems to have emerged purely as a social media reaction, with it being subsequently adopted by newspapers to qualify the outrage, and any and all incidents or content that have fuelled said outrage linked to the moniker in our article. But I don't even know if anyone but our article - and social media posts, which are unreliable sources as per WP:SPS - even defines some sort of existing "Elsagate" concept that actually includes this content itself, and not just a loose collection of individual Internet users outraged by specific content. Like, I don't really have the time to verify all the sources here, but I'm not sure whether many of these articles, talking about the specific questionable content, talk of Elsagate in the same breath.

As one example, none of the sources used to include Toy Freaks in the article, except one, even mention Elsagate; the one source that does, Newshub.co.nz (which I'm not even sure is reliable), doesn't exactly link the two together, just stating, based on Reddit accounts and Twitter hashtags, that these are "similar" phenomena.

In fact, much of anything here that justifies any sort of existence of some "Elsagate" phenomenon seems to always trace back to Reddit posts or Internet comments to define or otherwise document it as some overarching thing that's more than just separate incidents of abusive, or inappropriate, content, or alternatively more than just the social media reaction about this.

So overall, I question whether this concept, and potentially this article as a whole, respect the above notability or verifiability guidelines. But, to start with, I'll just remove your last addition. At a bare minimum, you need a better source than Android Authority for this. I suggest looking at the perennial sources list (WP:RSP), if you want some ideas - and definitely read up on what qualifies as a reliable source, via WP:RS. I may also fully rewrite the 2020s section as I outlined above.

Also, your addition - as well as much of the documented instances of "Elsagate", both in this section and above - would need a rewrite for better grammar, phrasing, punctuation and the like. As one single example, "X newspaper or mag published an article about" is awkwardly phrased, clunky, redundant, and often unnecessary, and its repeated usage makes much of these paragraphs poor in readability. LaughingManiac (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Mass psychogenic illness

Why is this article in the Mass psychogenic illness category? Cleblutie (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

No idea, but per CATV and CATDEF I just removed it, along with "child welfare", "kidnapping in fiction", "fiction about murder", and "fiction about abortion".

For "child welfare", "child abuse" is sufficient, and the "welfare" part does not seem like a defining aspect to me. Similarly, as for the others, CATDEF and DEFINING are very clear that defining characteristics, which are central to categorizing the article, should be ones that sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic. While some of the individual videos may have separately contained kidnapping, murder or abortion, these elements change from video to video, and are varyingly mentioned by sources - with, for instance, no source categorizing them as a whole as "murder fiction". LaughingManiac (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)