Talk for Article "‘This is violent, isn’t it?’ Trump holds video game violence meeting"

Talk about this Article

  1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    The last paragraph says:

    “Academic debate about games links with violence remains controversial and unclear.”

    Yet the source Wikipedia article seems to be making it clear that there is no link to real world violence and video games, quite the opposite.

    It may be that I have missed something, but I have never read anything that makes a case for a link between video games and violence.

    Also, movies and TV programmes show far worse than any video game.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Hi Dan. To me at least, the Wikipedia article seems to say links between violence in games and actual violence are unclear, but if the majority of users believe it comes to a different conclusion or Wikipedia changes what it’s saying we will change it.

      1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

        Perhaps it is the wording, and I’ve misunderstood.

        If you’re saying that there is no clear link between games and real violence, then that would be about right. I think.

  2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    My rewrite suggestion is for paragraph 3 to read:
    Trump previously spoke about the links of violence… (may need to play with the hyperlinks)

    My thought process/justification is:
    The current draft suggests what the next paragraph counters, which is that “Trump linked” these two phenomena. Obviously, he was not the first person nor President (as the article mentions) to question or try to understand this. The rewrite better highlights the newsworthy story, which is that prominent people (at least Trump and reps from both sides of the aisle) are talking about this link (perhaps it’s their first time, but not for others) and are having a (or another White House) meeting. The rewrite puts Trump’s recent words and the meetings at the forefront, which is the “news” here. This is a more NPOV, as I understand it, because it focuses on what is new, factual/verifiable, and suggests its relative weight in the larger debate.

    The links were well done in placement and balance to allow the reader to form their own opinion. Thanks for the article.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Hey Brandy. We have updated the article. Hopefully it addresses your concerns. What do you think?

      1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

        Sorry for the delay, didn’t see a notification and just checked back in. Thanks for addressing my concern here.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Be the first to collaborate on our developing articles

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Connect with us on Discord Email us