Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Sanctions enforcement

All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to General sanctions

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement

A suggestion on article ordering change

This long-running discussion on a proposal to reorganise the article has been divided into sections, one section per day, in order to make editing and reading easier.

Day 1

Looking over the draft (while we're still at draft, and presuming it will not be moved in soon), I really think there is a need to reorganize the material better but without changing the content. And right now, I'm simply talking about text cut and paste moves, no language change outside of necessary sentence flow.

Currently the article structure is this:

• History
  • Gamergate hashtag
  • Subsequent harassment
• Political views
  • Gamer identity
  • Misogyny and antifeminism
• Debate over ethics allegations
• Gamergate organization
  • Activities
    • The Fine Young Capitalists
    • Operation Disrespectful Nod
    • Operation Baby Seal
    • #NotYourShield
• Industry response

I would propose the following:

• History
  • Background (everything prior to August 2014)
  • Onset (this would be the activities within the first ~couple weeks of GG, encompassing Quinn/Sarkeesian; the only major text addition would be to explain that both ethics calls and harassment came from those using the hashtag)
  • Ongoing harassment (From Sarkeesian's bomb threat, Wu, and anything else ongoing including the swatting)
• Gamergate movement (or "organization" if we're still not comfortable with that).
  • History/makeup/organization (what is presently under "Gamergate hashtag"; this also includes, for example, Singal's observations on the lack of organization)
  • Ethics allegations (less any of the "but ethics" broad criticism like the current first paragraph; specific criticism of the specific ethics claims should stay with this)
  • Other activities (same sections as above, but I think we can look to trimming those down too)
• Criticism of Gamergate
  • Debate over ethics allegations
  • Political views
  • Gamer identity
  • Misogyny and anti-feminism
• Industry response/reactions

I suspect that there will be some with issues with putting the Gamergate movement/organization somewhat higher in the article, and doing some reordering around that, but when it comes to the narrative, it makes it much easier to explain the criticism (the sections I've listed above) once you've explained the makeup of GG and their stated desires. Right now, the way this is ordered, the narrative thought is difficult to follow, and this might be part of having too much focus putting the predominate view before the minority view/information. I am not proposing getting rid of any of the predominate view, but just reorganizing the points so that certain facets of the predominate view make more sense or are easier to explain after you've explained the minor view. (For example, the whole "but ethics!" line that the predominate view uses is difficult to understand until after you explain what the ethics claims are, why the press doesn't think those claims can be acted on, and then the complaints about the use of harassment to threaten/silence others.) Again, to stress, the only language change at the start would simply be wording for information flow; most of what I proposed is just moving the right blocks of paragraphs to the different sections.

For sake of minimal disruption, if there's even a reasonable belief this might work better, I would propose that I make the ordering change in the draft article and then revert myself on that change, only so that I can provide a fixed url that would show the skeleton of this re-ordered list to be clearer (and to avoid creating a draft of a draft of info that borders on BLP). --MASEM (t) 07:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:CRITICISM, The best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the article's flow. The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme – not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections. Additionally, a separate section titled "Criticism" implies that criticism should be pigeonholed into that section only, which is similarly not a best practice. I oppose creating a section entitled "Ethics allegations" because it avoids entirely the issue that most of the purported "ethics allegations" are widely viewed as not actually having anything to do with ethics — which is why the section is currently titled "Debate over ethics allegations" to present the fact that almost all external commentators see the allegations as both meritless and not actually involving questions of journalism ethics but rather simply furthering a culture war. I'm not necessarily opposed to some reordering, however. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We could leave readers with a false impression if they only read a single section. In general Masem's outline could work if we drop the criticism section and incorporate it into the prose of the Gamergate movement section. — Strongjam (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind CRITICISM is an essay; further even within that, WP:CRITS states "Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section." Here's the problem - there's no "positive" criticism to include. Reading through the rest of CRITICISM shows that separating out the larger criticism against GG as a whole as I suggest does not contradict that essay considering the nature topic at hand.

Additionally, denying a section title like "Ethic allegations" because it doesn't address the predominate view is not a neutral approach. In documenting what we can about the movement, we are not to care if the predominate view says what GG says is bogus when discussing the GG supporters/group. We need to write about the facts of the GG cause without any bias from the predominate viewpoint per FRINGE. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If there is no positive criticism then uncritically stating their claims is giving them WP:UNDUE weight and could violate WP:FRINGE by making the claims appear to be more notable or accepted then they really are. — Strongjam (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind what I said about how the ethics section would be changed: the specific issues raised by the media about some of the ethics claims (eg how unwieldy asking for "objective reviews" is) would be kept with these specific claims as these are best where those aspects are discussed; the broader criticism that "using ethics claims to cover up harassment" factors would be later when criticism of the movement as a whole is presented. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That might work. Specific claims by GG alongside the specific criticism for those claims, with the broader criticism later. Although I think that we could work the "cover up harassment" criticism as part of the Ethics section, perhaps in a wrap-up paragraph. — Strongjam (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That goes back to the point of the reordering: the criticism of "but ethics" relies on knowing the ethics claims, knowing the criticism of those claims, and knowing the backlash that the harassment has gotten and how some press see harassment is believed to be considered a tool used by GG to intimidate critics; only then the "but ethics" argument clearly make logical sense. The ordering I present makes those points ll in order before hitting on this core "but ethics" aspect. Trying to put it earlier is part of the reason the current narrative is very clunky. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The current Ethics section starts out with a brief description before the criticism already "Many Gamergate supporters contend that their movement is about ethical concerns revolving around the close relationships between journalists and developers, reviewers acknowledging social issues, and private conversations occurring between journalists." I just don't think we need a separate Critiscm of Ethics section, we document their claims (with an eye to WP:FRINGE) and the criticism, and wrap it up with the broader commentary. — Strongjam (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Day 2

Totally disagree with any suggestion to have a criticism section. I don't feel it would improve the article, its readability, or its neutrality at all to try and separate coverage into "supportive", "neutral", and "critical" and divide it up accordingly; those categories are obviously very important to many people involved in the controversy, but they are not encyclopedic divisions -- coverage is coverage, and should inform our entire article in accordance to its representation in reliable sources rather than being divided up based on our personal feelings about whether it makes the subject "look good" or "look bad". In particular, I find your assertion that the "political views" section should be a subsection of the 'criticism' section to make no sense at all; that should be its own section, with "Gamer identity" and "Misogyny and anti-feminism" as subsections of it, since those are the coverage of the politics behind GamerGate as covered by reliable sources. Likewise, it strikes me as bizarre to want to separate 'ethicla issues' and 'criticism of ethical issues' into separate sections -- we must cover the topic in one place as reported by reliable sources; if the ethics claims are generally dismissed in reliable sources, then the ethics section itself must make this its core thesis. Criticism sections are generally, I think, agreed to be terrible things, and I don't see anything in your arguments above that would change it here -- they generally end up serving only to provide dumping grounds for unrelated criticism (stripped of context, and therefore less useful), or to move any aspects of the article someone deems 'negative' out of the rest of the article. --Aquillion (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A "Criticism " section does not always mean negative criticism (you can have positive criticism); however, it doesn't have to be called criticism but it should be focused on analysis and criticism of the broad issues of GG. (Perhaps "Responses" as is done on Westboro, for example). There's a better way to gather the information in the article to put most of the broader analysis in one cohensive section. And let me stress - a criticism section has to be kept with this main article because that is what makes up 75%+ of the notability of GG; this is not an attempt to segegrate this off and then prime it to be moved, because I would be fully against that. (Barring anything major in the next few months, I can't see this article growing any more to necessitate a move).

Things like "gamer identity" and "misogyny and anti-feminism" are not political views, that's part of the problem. I'm rereading that section now, and it just doesn't make a lot of cohensive sense, because it feels like we're crowbarring in some thoughts that are better elsewhere in a logical order. I know where the "gamer identity" text came from (I had that as background material months ago), but it doesn't talk about any political views, for example. Maybe if it was "Analysis of Gamergate", discussing the "culture war and gamer identity", "misogyny and anti-feminism" , "lack of GG organization/structure", etc. that might make it clearer without calling it directly as criticism. --MASEM (t) 07:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with what you're saying here; the section discusses the forces that shape the political views driving GamerGate, which (according to our sources) are primarily the gamer identity, anti-feminism, and misogyny. Certainly anti-feminism is a political view if anything is; but misogyny and gamer identity (when driven by identity politics) are also political views. Regardless, these are not primarily commentary sections, or analysis sections, or criticism sections; these are sections describing the subject of the article and its views, as objectively and thoroughly as we can (using, ideally, the most reliable sources we can.) That is something that an article on a subject like this badly needs. I do not see any gain for the article by transforming them into "commentary" sections -- remember, we're trying to keep people from using the article as a dumping ground for random commentary, since that was a problem in the past. "Analysis of gamergate" (when it comes from reliable sources) is something we must depend upon for every single section of the article -- it is absolutely not something we could confine to just one section. (As my example, above, of the problems we would encounter trying to separate the section on ethics into 'ethics' and 'debate over ethics' shows.) Ultimately, I see no improvement from your proposed reordering -- I think that the current ordering accurately expresses the history of the movement, then the politics behind it, which are by far the most important subjects here. I would strenuously oppose moving anything in the current politics section lower in the article; it feels to me like you feel that the GamerGate Organization section is more 'objective' or that you can write a section that will accurately depict 'what GamerGate really believes' to be contrasted with people's commentary, but note that the organization and hashtag sections also rely on commentary, since there is no central GamerGate organization. To the extent that there is a broad agreement about what GamerGate wants and what it stands for, it is covered by our current politics section. --Aquillion (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Not every section needs analysis. In fact, we should start off with what information is not analysis and move up from that into the more secondary modes later. So starting with the current history and the history of harassment - which is all factual, no analysis needed, moving into what GG is and their claims, which is reporting what they say, though including some commentary on specific issues, and then moving into broad analysis of the situation, including why GG came about, the make up of the people, etc. - following the concept of Bloom's taxonomy in the presentation of this topic as it is very non-standard. And remember, I'm not talking about ridding sections, just reordering to make the narrative and logic flow better. And yes, we should be aiming to accurately represent what GG believes without any attempt at judgement in WP's voice - that's the primary impartial nature we need. We know we have tons of criticism against GG to include, but we can't let the volume of that public opinion sway the approach we talk to writing on the details specific from the GG's mouths. --MASEM (t) 16:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Day 3

I disagree with your implicit assertion that we should give critics who claim to be speaking from within some "GamerGate organization" any particular precedent over those who do not when it comes to analyzing and characterizing what is behind the controversy. For one thing, GamerGate is structureless, and therefore such critics' opinions can never be more than their own personal opinions (which must be weighted according to their prominence and usefulness as a reliable source); for another, in situations where these viewpoints conflict, our duty is to focus on things in proportion to their representation in reliable sources -- not to portray "what these random commentators, who arbitrarily claim to be part of some hypothetical GamerGate organization, say their movement is really about." Beyond that, you are still making a false distinction between "criticism against GG, and what the analysis of these supposed critics says it believes" as opposed to "what GG actually believes, according to Real True GamerGators". This is not a meaningful distinction(note that you have to source your statement on what GG actually believes to somewhere, which is, inevitably, analysis.)

As an aside, I note that you have repeatedly said that you want GamerGate covered the way the Westboro Baptist Church is. If you go there and read its Church views section, you'll see it is sourced almost entirely to pieces that are clearly critical of the church; we do not simply rely on the first-hand accounts of the church's own beliefs, but on analysis and interpretation from reliable sources. We must describe GG's beliefs, goals, and politics in the same way, according to what reliable sources have said about them, without regard for what side you (or they) feel they are on; this is what the current politics section does. And in fact it is particularly important here, because unlike the church there is no central GamerGate mouthpiece, meaning that there are almost no concrete and reliable primary sources; but regardless, even if that were not the case, as an encyclopedia, we are supposed to rely primarily on secondary sources and their analysis when discussing eg. what GamerGate is actually all about. In this light, virtually all reliable coverage of GamerGate has said that it is about a culture war centered around people moved by gamer identity politics, gender-politics, and anti-feminism, who have either -- depending on your point of view -- used discussion about ethics in journalism (as it relates to the vast ideological conspiracy that many within GamerGate allege) in order to advance these goals; or who has discovered a vast unethical conspiracy among their ideological opponents on those axes. This is, therefore, what we must lead with in describing it, and it is what the current politics section says. --Aquillion (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've argued before to avoid SPS sources for proGG statements - most of what we can say about the GG's claims about ethics, etc. are from sources that are critical of GG. We should rely on these sources to put the GG statements in context, but we also should not forget to include what the original statements are. Those people are one side of the controversy and we should be earnestly trying to document it within our RS policy in as neutral and non-judgemental a manner as possible, as is done on Westboro. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Day 4

But nobody is saying "the Westboro Baptist church isn't really about opposing gays." If there were people who claimed to be members of the Westboro Church and who argued that it was really about (say) ethics in games journalism, yet the vast majority of reliable sources dismissed that as tangential to its purpose and said that it was about opposition to gays, we would focus on its opposition to gays in its 'political views' section, and make that the focus of the article; this is especially true, of course, if that was what it was notable for. (In fact, the Westboro Church does have many views other than its view on homosexuality. The article notes them, but puts them very far down the article and gives them little attention, because they are not what it is notable for and not what most commentators say is the main driving force behind it.) Additionally, it's important not to fall into the trap of saying that "these people are a side in the controversy" as if that means we need to give them particular weight; our job is not to present all sides equally, but to present them in proportion to their representation among reliable sources. I would actually go so far as to say that they are not a side in the controversy as reflected by reliable sources; as far as I can tell, we don't have any reliable sources -- among those that describe them in any depth, or which give them any credit at all -- that describes the ethics issues as something distinct from the culture-war issues. (That is, there are some sources that argue that GamerGate is part of a legitimate culture war opposing a vast unethical conspiracy by feminists and other ideological opponents in order to control the media; but this is, indeed, already covered by the current political views section, though we cover it in a neutral fashion and therefore without giving undue credence to it. I think it's reasonable to describe it as a fairly WP:FRINGE theory, after all.) At this point I think that there is broad agreement among our sources -- on all 'sides' -- about what exactly GamerGate's ethical issues are about, what they mean, what perspective they come from and how they relate to the larger culture war. They disagree only on whether those accusations are accurate or whether the individual claims amount to proof of this broad conspiracy. Obviously it makes no sense to cut out the arguments that it does amount to proof of a broad conspiracy and try to present them separately, since, again, the media conspiracy allegations are a WP:FRINGE theory, which therefore must be given less prominence than the prevailing view. --Aquillion (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not about "equal" coverage, this is talking about impartial and neutral coverage, and writing an encyclopedia article that can be understood. If I was a reader with no idea about GG but wanted to be informed to learn what the GG movement is, this article does a poor job in its present state because its focused too much on making sure the predominate POV (that GG is bad) is shown, and does not present the GG side with what sources we have in any form of coherent, non-prejudgemental organization. Everything we can factually state about GG, including elements that could be seen as negative aspects like their unorganized, anon nature or their ethics claims, as well as their activities that can be documented, like the various operations to ad agencies, should be kept in one single section; after which we can then include the broad criticism of the group that builds on all those facets. (All this after we've run through the most visible facts of the harassment that has occurred). Keep in mind - in the topic of a Gamergate controversy , the GG movement is not a FRINGE view. If we were talking about gaming journalism, heck yes what GG claims is extremely fringe and likely would not be include, but to the core of this article which is about what has happened because of the actions of this movement, their views are not trivial. They're difficult to document, for certain, and very difficult to find anyone that agrees with them, but we still need to use whatever means to present the GG side as a legitimate part of the controversy as the key party of interest. This article has that information already, but in such a disorganized manner as to create the non-partial approach. Reorganizing in the manner I spoke of, without adding or removing any sourced content and only adjusting sentence for flow, goes a long way to present the GG side in a more encyclopedic and less judgemential light. That's the whole point when you come to Westboro, or Scientology, or any other group/person that has a broad negative public opinion out there; we don't base the article on the negative public opinion but around the group itself in as much a factual manner as possible and then include the criticism. --MASEM (t) 03:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If you came here to find out what the gamergate movement was, you came to the wrong place asking the wrong question. this is the article about the controversy created by the vile vile harassment under the gamergate hashtag and the underlying antifeminist/anti-woman culture war in the gaming world that the vile vile harassment brought into the view of mainstream culture. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Obviously, we are not going to have an article that separates the harassment facets from the movement (the notability are far too tied together to even consider that), and there is legitimately a question of coming to WP to learn about the movement and trying to understand their motives as to learn about how harassment became an issue. This is the right page on WP to discuss the movement and we are not doing a good job of that due to the current organization. And no, we're not here to talk about the "vile vile harassment" but just the "harassment". WP is amoral in that regards. --MASEM (t) 04:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

per all the sources , as it relates to the subject of this article - gamergate the so called movement is a NOTHING that accomplished NOTHING other than perhaps attempt to act as a transparent cover for vile vile harassment against women. and aside from the vile vile harassment is a bunch of idiot conspiracy theorists who dont know what either "ethics" or "objective" actually means. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Popular opinion/criticism, but not fact. We have facts about the movement we can discuss, and which are necessary to discuss, to understand why criticism is as harsh as it is. We should be earnestly trying to use what we can take from the reliable sources to document clearly what factual information there is about the GG movement to explain the people and their stated goals that are at the centerpoint of this controversy, to be encyclopedicly complete, and should not be ignoring the GG movement because of the claimed "vile vile harassment" they've done. --MASEM (t) 04:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion whatever "facts not opinions" we may have from reliable sources about the "so called movement" are in fact almost entirely devoid of any relevance to the subject of this article, the controversy. WP:COATRACK -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

What the GG movement is is absolutely key to this topic and in absolutely no way a coatrack argument. Refusal to cover what the GG movement claims to be (the group that is responsible, directly or not, for the controversy) in a non-judgemental manner, even with as limited an amount of sourcing from reliable sources as we have to do that from, is a direct violation of NPOV, because you are refusing to cover a major facet of the controversy. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT for any article you can provide that has any measure of focus on the "so called movement" i can produce a dozen that have only a passing mention or directly comment on its actual meaninglessness. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

But the key thing is - there are many highly reliable sources that cover GG as a movement, with most then within a paragraph going on to criticize that for the rest of the article. That means that what GG is is important to their criticism and we should of course cover what GG is and their motives and goals so that the criticism of GG makes sense. You can't introduce "But ethics!" criticism without describing the ethics claims. We don't need dedicated articles that are solely proGG to provide this information, there are plenty of very critical articles against GG that do provide sufficient details for us to explain the GG side of the equation briefly, which we already effectively do, but just with poor narrative or logical progression that can be improved by simply reordering what we have without changing the balance of the article/sources. --MASEM (t) 06:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting for your actual sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I already said the sources for this are in the article sourcing what we know about the movement, such as the words by Singal, articles like [1], and [2], albeit briefly because there's not that much they can figure out but they try to at least. They talk about what the GG movement is from the view the GG movement, and then move on to analysis and criticism. So yes, there are sources. There are also sources that completely ignoring what GG wants to write one-sided approaches, but we don't follow tone, we are looking to summarize the whole story, so ignoring what we can source that we know about GG is inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Day 5

No discussion on day 5. --TS 04:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Day 6

Again, your statement that those sources are one-sided and that they are completely ignoring what GG wants to write is, ultimately, nothing more than your personal opinion. We have plenty of sources that indicate that, yes, there are voices even within GamerGate (or at least, saying that they are within GamerGate) that are loudly and aggressively declaring that the purpose of the movement is to harass specific women, or to advance a gender-politics agenda, or to push hard on one side in a culture war, or countless other things; we rely on sources to parse through these and produce an accurate summary based on their reliability, not based on subjective opinions about what the "real" GamerGate is. Even if you don't realize it, you are basically suggesting that we categorize and weight sources according to your personal POV over which are accurate -- when one source says "I went to GamerGate, and they said it was all about ethics" you agree with them; when someone says "I went to GamerGate, and they said it was all about driving LW1, LW2, and L@3 to suicide" or "I went to GamerGate, and they said it was all about crushing Feminism and Social Justice Warriors" or when a source says "I speak for GamerGate, and it's all about fighting the liberal agenda of the media and pushing back against the conspiracy of feminist gender-politics", you're dismissing that solely because you disagree with the conclusions they're drawing. All of those sources, after all, claim to be saying that they are reporting what GG is from the view of the GG movement -- you're treating "what GG is really all about" or even "what GG says GG is really all about" as if it is straightforward and obvious; but given the amount of arguing on this talk page and elsewhere, I don't think it's that obvious. And to the extent that there's a broad agreement, I think it's what our politics section generally describes -- that is, GamerGate is basically about a culture war in which some people are convinced that there is a broad gender-politics conspiracy which is being advanced by sinister, unethical media collusion and which must be confronted and destroyed. The sources disagree a bit on what the driving force is behind this belief (whether it's gamer identity politics, gender politics, misogyny, or whether people are flocking to it because the conspiracy is real and gamers can see that), but the overarching reasons behind the conflict seem like they're largely something every reputable agrees on, regardless of "side"; it would be non-neutral of us to bury that because you personally feel that you've looked at the issue and identified what the Real True View From Within GamerGate is. --Aquillion (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

We have no sources that say that from within the same group of people that are asking about ethics within the GG movement, that they also engaged in harassment or directly support harassment as a tool of their agenda. Yes, some have said, paraphrasing, "Yes, harassment is bad, but X deserved what they got", and we have clear press statements that call out that opinion, but that's also not a signficiant opinion of the ethics side of the GG part. This goes to the point below - there is no affirmed connection between any person of the GG movement that supports ethics, and those that engaged in harassment. The likelihood that there is a connection is very high, but we can't presume that. It is important to establish that because of how unorganized, anonymous, and diffuse the GG movement is, it is difficult to define exact bounds, and thus it is readily easy to think of both sides as part of the same group, but we also are clear that there's at least two different subgroups (these we can source) - the "GG Moderate", those that are actively trying to stop the harassment and police that, and people who are don't even care about the GG goals but are using the GG name to harass people. There may be other groups, but these are two we can document with existing sources. But this is all more points to explain what the GG movement is as objectively as possible before getting into full-blown criticsm of the group. Whatever the makeup of the group, they're responsible in a direct or indirect manner for every statement made on this page, so it is the movement that needs to have some focus before getting into the analysis and criticism of all these actions. --MASEM (t) 03:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. The issue isn't whether the GamerGate controversy is defined by harassment; that isn't our decision, that's something that is defined by coverage in the mainstream media, which has overwhelmingly made harassment the crux of its reporting. We should, of course, be careful not to inadvertently say "every single person who retweeted GamerGate has committed harassment" or anything like that in the article voice, but we still have to respect the focus of reliable sources, so that aspect isn't really one we can grapple with. (In fact, I don't feel the changes you proposed would affect that aspect much at all.) The issue is the coverage on what the GamerGate controversy is about in terms of politics and goals; this is the focus of the politics section (which you are arguing must be moved to the bottom of the article and generally made less prominent.) Nobody is saying that every single person who ever retweeted #GamerGate is guilty of sending death threats; but the vast majority of our sources say that GamerGate is fundamentally about gamer identity, culture warfare over gender-politics (driven by, as many of our sources term it, misogyny), and opposition to what many people involved in the controversy see as their ideological enemies. This, therefore, must be core to how we describe the conflict. There are very few sources that agree with your implicit assertion that this aspect is divided into two distinct organizations -- some of the people driven by these passions engage in harassment, and some do not, but most sources in our article seem to agree that those particular passions are the driving force behind the controversy. And this is, currently, what our article says; we report on the most noteworthy things that have happened in relation to GamerGate and on what, according to the most reliable sources, the debate is about, what people who are getting angry are angry about, and so on. Your personal opinion that the entire movement splits cleanly into two identifiable groups (and that we must defer to the group that you have identified as the "main" group and give what you say are their views prominent a voice before we move on to what the reliable sources say) is not one that I feel is backed up by the sources we have in the article; most of the in-depth analysis of GamerGate is at this point in broad agreement about the crux of the controversy, and it is not about "ethics" -- it is about people driven by cultural warfare to oppose their ideological opponents, who they believe have used unethical methods to advance their agenda. This is something the current article covers accurately. I feel that your proposed changes would reduce the prominence of this view (which is, again, in the overwhelming majority) in favor of an extremely WP:FRINGE description of the ongoing controversy and a characterization of GamerGate that very very few sources agree reflects reality. --Aquillion (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the problem with how GG is reported in mainstream media, and while I'll frequently point back to things like Westboro Baptist Church, and other groups/people that have a near-universal negative public perception. Yes, it is popular opinion of the press that they think GG is an harassment campaign and that's fair that that is their, but we cannot treat that as fact without any clear established evidence of that, in light that GG does not say they are an harassment campaign. We cannot misrepresent what GG claims to be despite what the popular opinion is. There's not much objective we can say about GG (per WEIGHT/UNDUE), and there's a lot of criticism that we have to include to accurately represent how the popular opinion is about GG, but we have to start without prejudging GG as something they say they are not. We don't treat suspects of crimes who claim they are innocent even if the rest of the world assumes they are guilty, until there is a legal decision that counters that point. Same here - there is no clear evidence of a legal or scientific nature to show that GG is really about harassment. We're going to include the strong doubt this is the case, obviously, but we can't start there, which is what the current organization of the article does. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that people don't disagree about what the Westboro Baptist Church is and what it thinks; everyone agrees that they are opposed to gays, that this is the most noteworthy thing about them, and that the people who we see standing at funerals shouting insults to gays represent the church as a whole, so when we cite critical analysis of what their views are in our description of them, it's clear what it should say. In this case, though, while (as I said) I think there is now fairly broad agreement about what GamerGate is really about, there are a few people (like, I gather, you) who disagree with this broad consensus -- you are saying "these people, who the media quotes, who the coverage focuses on, who the news pieces describe; these are not the real GamerGate. I, Masem, know what the real GamerGate is, and we are being unfair to it." But you need to recognize that this is just your opinion. We have to determine what GamerGate is -- who speaks for it, which opinions it holds, what its goals and methods are -- by looking at reliable sources, not based on your personal feelings. And those sources have generally described it in terms of cultural warfare, fights over gender-politics and gamer-identity-poltitics, and -- yes -- the harassment that has come out of these things. These are the defining aspects of the controversy and the key people involved in it. Describing this as the core of the GamerGate controversy and the driving force behind it is not a misrepresentation; it is an unbiased, accurate coverage of the topic as reported in the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. Obviously you disagree -- you feel that those sources are wrong, that they're misrepresenting it, and so on -- but that is ultimately just your opinion; it's not backed by the sources we have at the moment. --Aquillion (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Er, Westboro themselves do not agree with what is said about them. And yes, we actually can objectively state what GG's intents and motives are. We have those sources already. We have that text already, even - but it's spread out across the article and placed in contradictory sentences that prejudge them. We can write a heck of alot better without changing the balance of material and sources. --MASEM (t) 05:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Day 7

When the Westboro Baptist church disagrees with what the experts say about them (for instance, in the characterization of them as hyper-calvinist), we go by what the experts say; if someone claiming to speak for the Westboro Baptist Church were to start denying that they were anti-gay, we would still describe them as anti-gay in the lead and devote the bulk of the politics section to their anti-gay sentiments, because our political views section is largely sourced to reliable experts on the topic and not directly to the church itself. Similarly, we can only objectively state what the intents and motives behind the GamerGate controversy are by looking at how they are covered by reliable sources. If the reliable sources state that (for instance) GamerGate is about gender-war politics, harassment, misogyny, gamer identity warfare, and conspiracy theories, we must report these aspects in proportion to the attention such sources have given them; objectivity means reporting what reliable sources say, in proportion to the prominence of the relevant views, without judgment on our part. It is clear that you personally disagree with the conclusion that the majority of reliable sources have come to, and therefore feel that that conclusion is not objective; but it still is what it is. In order to make the locus of controversy completely clear (because I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying): When you say "I just want the article to say what GamerGate really says it is about", I believe that you are looking a small fringe view of what GamerGate says it is about; I am not saying merely that that characterization is a minority view, I am saying that your opinion that GamerGate describes itself that way (to the extent that the controversy can be said to have any concrete character) is not accurate and is not reflected in the sources. The sources in the political views section say that the GamerGate controversy, going by the words of self-described supporters, is focused on fighting a culture war against their gender-politics opponents, which is what our article accurately reflects. I will add one additional thing which might explain your continued confusion when it comes to the focus on harassment: Different sources in the article mean different things when they say 'harassment'. Many of them clearly lump all of the accusations against Quinn et. all under harassment, from the perspective that maliciously repeating untrue accusations is a form of harassment, and therefore describe anyone repeating these accusations as guilty of harassment. In that regard it makes sense for those sources to say that GamerGate is primarily about harassment; and when that perspective is the one reflected in the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, we must reflect it here as well, even if it is something that some people who think of themselves as members of GamerGate would object to. Even if you feel that this is unfair or that it does not accurately characterize their viewpoint, we must still go with what those reliable sources say; our responsibility is to ensure that we report things according to their focus in reliable sources, and to avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to WP:FRINGE descriptions of the controversy, no matter how much more accurate you may feel those descriptions are. --Aquillion (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's the issue: who are the "experts" making the determination that Westboro is anti-gay, or for anything that is a subjective measure? Usually there is no one that can do this, becuase is near impossible to be an expert in such fields. (Take movie reviews - we will default to explain people like Roger Ebert's POV on a movie because we know he's got a clear handle on films, but his opinion remains opinion, and always in his voice.) There's no issue saying, clearly, "The press think GG is misogynistic", because that is a clear demonstrable fact - 100s of articles express that opinion. But that doesn't mean "GG is misogynistic" is a fact, for the very reason that there is no effective way to prove that. And because this is not fact, and because we're talking about a group central to the issue at hand, we cannot say what they say is wrong (nor right). We have side A, we have side B. We cannot make a judgement which side is right. Side A - the GGers, aren't going to be able to have a lot of objective material here, and side B's voice is going to be a predominate part of this article, but we cannot let the condemnation of the press set our tone in any way. Our responsibility is to stay neutral to what RSes say as we are simply trying to document the event, not try to convince a reader of a conclusion one way or another. --MASEM (t) 05:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Our job, as an encyclopedia, is not to divide everything into two "sides" and then try to give each side equal weight; our job is to try and ignore (and stay above) the conflict as much as possible while trying to find the most reputable sources on the topic that we can, so we can rely on their coverage and perspectives in proportion to how prominent each aspect is. I strongly disagree with your assertion, in fact, that there are two clearly-distinct, definable 'sides' here -- many, many different reliable sources have weighed in with different perspectives, and we must parse the most reliable coverage of the controversy from those and then produce an accurate, impartial summary of it based on what that says. If you end up feeling that the overall coverage of the topic in reliable sources is biased (and that seems to be what you're saying here when you define "the press" as a side?), that's, unfortunately, not something we can correct as an encyclopedia -- we do not suddenly start disregarding WP:RS simply because some people claim that the press is biased. Our responsibility is to stay neutral by reflecting what each reliable source says in proportion to its prominence; if coverage of the topic among reliable sources is a deafening chorus saying that this is a culture war being waged over gender politics and against so-called social justice warriors, then our article must likewise reflect that deafening chorus, and it would absolutely be a violation of NPOV to say "but here's what some random people say it's really all about." Trying to balance coverage away by taking a WP:FRINGE viewpoint on the controversy and giving it greater weight than it deserves is, in fact, taking an unacceptable stance in support of that viewpoint; it is our job to uncritically report on what the press says, not to define the press as a "side" and then try to argue against it by scavenging for whatever fringe viewpoints in opposition we can find. I assume, based on what you're saying above, that you feel that the press should not be reported uncritically in this case (that it is biased, or that it has clearly taken a side?) But that is not how we write Wikipedia articles; if you want to challenge reliability of the press, this is unfortunately not the place to do it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

My argument has nothing to do with any possible bias of the press, only that they are expressing their opinion, not fact. As such, while their voice is predominate and will be the majority of the text we have in the article, as it is now, we cannot slip and take the same tone they have taken to condemn GG, as this is not necessary the "right" or "wrong" position, just the predominate one. We cannot prejudge anything, and if the press has, we have to strip that away in presenting any objective fact, and then be clear when we are expressing their opinion. "GG is considered misogynistic by the mainstream media" is completely acceptable here and I am in no way arguing against removing any of the opinions currently cited to the press to condemn GG, only that we make sure that we keep everything else outside that as objective as possible to be a neutral, impartial work.

Further, calling the GG movement's view "fringe" really is not appropriate here. If we were talking an article where the topic is gaming journalism, yes their opinion on what they want from gaming journalism is clearly fringe. But GG is the central reason why this article even exists - not necessary by the actions they specifically started but still required their spark to do that. What their side has expressed is important to present to make the media's take on their actions understandable. They are not a fringe view here if they are the central point this all extended from. They don't have a lot of RS to back up their point but they have enough that we can reorganize what we already have to provide a more cohesive picture of their side of this issue, and thus make the criticism the press throws down in spades much clearer to understand. Look at any disliked organization. Look at any page on a major criminal or crime with identified targets. Even if these people are convicted of a crime, we still neutrally and impartially present their side of the issue - not necessary in equal time, but without any prejudging of whether their motives were right or wrong. We need to do the same here, even if the bulk of GG are anon people, they are still people at the end of the day and not any evidence they have engaged in any illegal activity to factually call them out on that. Again to stress: the reorg I have presented would require no removal or addition of sources from what we already have, nor removal of any text, only the addition and wordsmithing of text to smooth presentation. --MASEM (t) 06:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm beginning to understand your point of view. You think the central reason for this article is something called Gamergate comprising a group of people. This isn't true, though. The article exists because of a series of vehemently misogynistic attacks on women in gaming. We would not be writing this article if it weren't for those attacks, which for want of a better word make this article notable. Some people want to call themselves Gamergate? We write about those guys, too, though it's very difficult because there is little organisation. But the Gamergate controversy is what it is, and we're here to write the best possible article about that. --TS 13:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the continued problem with the article. Did it get notability because of some attacks? Sure. But now we have an article, so we need to cover what the entire topic is about, not just one aspect of it. The article probably needs a rename and a restructure to start, and perhaps now that ArbCom has done some work here we can start doing the work of repairing the article so it meets our content standards. At no point should this comment be construed as saying the article shouldn't cover the issues of harassment or follow sources, merely that the article, to meet our basic point of view policies, needs significant repair. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Having said that, though, I think we need something concrete to look at. Please make a skeleton of your proposed outline in your userspace and fill it in with a list of sources and general themes (or content from our existing draft if it fits) and then we'll be able to see more clearly what you mean. I'm a but wary about article forks, which can lead to divisive behaviour, which is why I don't think you should create it in the draft namespace. But personally I wouldn't object to your placing your demo into the draft article's history and then mass reverting it, which I think you suggested earlier. --TS 13:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree that in August/September the reason for this article was the amount of attention the harassment aspects under the GG hashtag got - indeed, the AFD filed shortly after creation suggests that the harassment done under "GamerGate" was the notable factor, not the movement. But we're 5 months out, and things have changed. "Gamergate movement" gets more hits than "Gamergate controversy". The group of people under GG - at least as seen by the press - are the subject of intense criticism. Argubly the movement is its own notable topic, but I would never suggest separating it out at all, because the controversy over harassment, and the movement, are inseparable subjects. I've noted this issue several times before: we are really dealing with two different controversies - what the GG supports have against gaming media, and what the mainstream media has against the tactics used by those under the GG hashtag. The latter has clearly the most cover, but the former is readily sourcable to reliable sources (we already have that). The controversy is about the movement.

As a thought experiment (I would not suggest this format at all), consider if this article was about the GG movement, structured close to how Westboro is laid out. We'd explain how their group came to be and some of the activities they have done. We'd have to explain that there was harassment done under the GG name even if that's not tied to the group. And then we go into the reactions and criticism of the group. 99% of that content would be the same as what we have here. This is more evidence that that "GG controversy" and the "GG movement" are inseparable elements if not synonymous with each other, and as it makes zero sense to have a separate article on the movement when it is so tied to the controversy, we need to make sure that that is covered in an encyclopedic-appropriate manner even with there's only about a dozen RS sources we can pull from to describe this (using a lot of Singal's attempts to dive into the innards to help expand). That's the whole point of my proposed reorg is simply to make sure that we cohesively define what is known about the movement as the central figure to the controversy.

As for the draft, my plan to present something to review but without being disruptive (and as this point, I would even consider a user-space draft to be that way even if there's AGF that I'm not going to twist it around (I fear that others will want to do the same based on that), was to simply inject a revision into the draftspace article (Editeded off line), then revert, and then present the diff id as the first draft of reorg w/ minimal wordsmithing for flow, for evaluation, and why I made sure this was clear before doing that to minimize any apparent disruption that might seem to be. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You and I are thinking alike on this in a few ways, but I'm wondering why you don't like the format you've mapped out here? That seems to be the most reasonable way out, and solves 95% of the problems with this article as is. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Interjection on Day 6

This discussion, now in its sixth day, is beginning to resemble a rather dull saloon bar discussion largely between two parties who cannot see eye to eye. I think the onus is on Masem to explain why we can't use reliable sources to describe what Gamergate is and how we could do otherwise without making a pact with the dreaded synthesis monster or giving undue weight to negligible voices. Perhaps at this point others may want to chip in with their views. --TS 05:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I mean, according to that, you've already made your decision, haven't you? Saying "explain why we can't use reliable sources to describe what Gamergate is and how we could do otherwise without making a pact with the dreaded synthesis monster or giving undue weight to negligible voices" basically is saying "I think the RS say this, and therefore you trying to change it is working against that." Ries42 (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, at this stage I think we all are in agreement about what the reliable sources say. I'm trying to work out how this proposal is supposed to reflect those sources with appropriate weight, given what we already know they say, and especially given how overwhelmingly they say it. --TS 06:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Tony, we're definitely in agreement about what the reliable sources being used in this article say. There's definitely significant disagreement still standing about whether we're using all the available resources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Because there remains a clear serious problem that this article has a non-neutral tone, despite having the proper balance of sources representing the mainstream view, which is against NPOV and also a point addressed by Arbcom in the NPOV statement. To be a neutral entity in this process, we cannot make the same leaps of logic the press has made in the absence of facts. And I'm addressing this as one that doesn't have much sympathy for the general attitude and the various actions made by GG but can see there's a huge problem in how this article's tone is written. People are shutting out any discussion starting "But the press says GG is bad!" but that's simply not how we can start as a neutral impartial article evidenced by most of our other articles on controversial topics on WP. Remember, I'm not asking to change the sources or the bulk of the wording, simply to reorder to improve the tone, narrative, and logic flow. --05:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not getting that from your proposed outline. You seem to want all criticism of Gamergate corralled in a single section. Isn't that like rewriting the World War I article to describe the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand, and Gavrilo Prinzip's motives, and lumping everything else into an "aftermath" section? The Gamergate controversy _is_ the topic. That's why we gave the article that name. --TS 05:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No, because this topic is nowhere as complicated in the history as, say, WWI. There is one primary event - the chain of harassment from August to September, and while there are other smaller incidents, everything is still based on that month of problems. We explain that first, then the people that are at least central to some of the issues, and then the criticism of that group and what resulted. That's pretty straight forward and a common approach for single events across WP. --MASEM (t) 05:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds to me as if you're _now_ saying we should severely narrow our focus. From an ongoing five month harassment campaign widely covered in reliable sources, you want to concentrate on just the first month. I still don't think I get the same description of what you want in any two comments. Perhaps you need to get a coherent idea of what changes you want first, in your own mind, and then you can present it here for discussion. --TS 06:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I notice that you also hint that the arbitration committee says something that supports your view that this article is in contravention of the neutral point of view policy. Be specific. Here is their NPOV principle as written. Explain why you think our article fails on this:

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited.[3]

I note that none of the findings that are passing refer to NPOV, though that doesn't absolve us of the duty to ensure that we get it right. So I want to understand your criticism and satisfy myself in this regard.

Because your criticisms are so vague and take on multiple facets when you're asked to be specific, it's very hard for me to understand what you criticism is except that you don't like it. --TS 07:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding timing - 90% of what this article focuses on is what happened in the first month - Quinn, Sarkeesian, Wu, Felicia Day, the USU threat, the "Death of Gamers", and the initial Operation aimed at advertisers. The rest have be long-tail responses that are not part of the initial matters that brought this to attention, though are part of how the industry and the media has responded to this. It is not like your example of WWI where there were years of many different battles. Things happened, and they tailed off, with bits of news popping up here and there on long term reactions. If the past 5 months were the same amount of news day after day of Gamergate actions, it would be different, but it's clear that the effect of GG appears to be in its last stages, barring any major revelations.

The last part Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited is what applies here. The article is writing strongly against the GG movement and/or very sympathetic towards the harassment victims, even if the bulk of the sources are written this way. We can't write that way, we are supposed to be amoral and clinically neutral which is a challenge here because of the emotional aspects this subject has. We cannot adopt the same tone and attitude the press has taken towards GG, and should be in all earnest and within the limitations of the source of our V/RS polices to present the GG side in an fair and impartial manner before turning to the massive amount of crit we have from the press against GG. And by fair, I don't mean equal time, because that's impossible per V/RS. But I do mean not assuming anything negative about them within WP's voice or approach to writing; we cannot present their self-stated goals and issues with any prejudgement either from us or the press; afterwards, we can include the cric in spades, or where it is attached to specific points where it makes more logical sense (for example, when describing the GG's "objective reviews" we can then counter that point right there that the concept is considered an oxymoron by critics), but the broad sweeping crit like "it's a front for harassment", etc. should be after we have fully presented the GG side. It's both more impartial and more logical in thought to explain the criticism of GG after reviewing all of the GG position. It's completely doable without changing, removing or adding any new sources, it is simply reworking order and sentence flow, as a first point, which is what I have clearly asked for above in this thread. I want to use the draft to show what that order would result in, but I don't want to do that yet given that we're straw polling to have the current version replace the main page, but I also want to make sure that others are clear what I'm doing first before massively reverting any changes. --MASEM (t) 07:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not "advocacy or promotion" to report what reliable sources report about something. Indeed, that is exactly what Wikipedia articles do and exactly how they are written. And no, we are not required to present GG's claims as if they are true before reporting that they have been widely debunked by reliable sources. The NPOV policy does not require us to say that something which is false is true — and in fact, the BLP policy requires us to not present false claims as true when they relate to living people, as the vast majority of Gamergate claims do. These are not academic discussions about the finer points of a theory, but attacks on the characters of living people, and we have a fundamental responsibility to treat living people with fairness, sensitivity and respect. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is not "advocacy or promotion" to state what RS state they feel about a situation, but it is the case when we talk their side as being "right", even if we don't say that. When we write "GG claims it is X but many critics say it is not X", that is a tone that puts the GG as "wrong" and the press "right". We are required to present what GG claims about itself (the little we can extract from RSes) without any prejudgemental calls, because we cannot presume the popular opinion is the right opinion. In regards to anything BLP related in that, there is exactly BLP-tied item that we can actually pull from RSes as part of GG's position, and that is the one accusation that is undenibly proven false, the one about Quinn/Grayson/positive coverage. While I know there are many other accusations out there that some GG want to claim, there's nothing to be pulled from any high-quality RSes, and as such, as long as we are staying to RS coverage, the inclusion of any other BLP that would fall line with policy is not going to happen. (There will continue to be the nature that trolls and the like will stay trolling and insert unsourced material as for example on the Frank Wu article, but that's easily dealt with by BLP policy. This is what happens regardless due to the nature of an open wiki, which isn't going to change). And your final point "to treat living people with fairness, sensitivity and respect" -- so are the bulk of the GG movement. They are real people too. No, BLP doesn't apply to them as a broad nameless group, but lacking any clear evidence that all of GG is responsible for the harassment, we should be presenting their side without any prejudgement. The press has enough words about them so the reader will clearly walk away to know the public opinion swings against them, but that should only be after they've read the press's arguments, and not from how WP's voice gives that. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Masem. On timing, now you're up to the USU cancellation which is in the New York Times in mid-October, two months after the fuss began with the Zoe Post. You also mention Felicia Day, which was about a week later. Can you see why this style of discussion is so frustrating? It takes ages for us to get on the same page about a tiny aspect of what you say we should do, and we still haven't examined why you think this reduction in scope is supported by the sources or how that fits in with your broader ideas. It's exhausting and it's clearly not going to get anywhere until we have clear, limited, justifiable and actionable proposals or at least a fighting chance of moving in that direction.

As to explain the gamergate position, I don't think we can do that because we have no reliable source that presents it as coherent. Possibly the best piece on that position (or at least the earnest search to see if such a position exists) is this piece by Singal.

As for the victims, I challenge you to demonstrate to me a way in which we are writing about the victims in a way that is disproportionate. What do you mean when you say we're sympathetic towards the harassment victims? Obviously even describing a victim of death and rape threats as such, even in the most spartan terms, will necessarily evoke sympathy in the reader. But what are we writing that unnecessarily plays on that sympathy? --TS 09:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, my mistake on the length of time but even with October, that's still at most two months of effectively much the same activity (as late August is when the stuff started). The same point is there - this is nothing like WWI in terms of the complexity of events which are the central part of the controversy. The history section captures that period - and the continued harassment that sporatically still occurs - perfectly. Also keep in mind that the press has not focused on any specific event in terms of criticism but the GG movement as a whole; the USU threat, for example, was where the long-running history was brought to the world stage, arguably, but it wasn't the event itself discussed but GG as a whole.

What I've been saying is that we have enough to write a brief but objective section on GG's stance. (brief due to the limited RSes that have talked about it) We talk about how they are (or aren't) organized, where they congregate, their estimated numbers, we talk about their ethics claims already, and actions they've taken in response to negative press. It's all there, but scattered like seeds instead of a cohesive section. That's what the reorganization I've suggested is meant to help. Then once the GG side is explained, we've got a barrage of various facets of negative criticism about GG as a whole, which make much more sense after you've explained the GG approach and mindset.

I never said we're disproportionate about the harassment victims, but we have to be aware that we cannot show sympathy for them just as we cannot show prejudgement for the GG side. I don't think the article at the present time shows any excessive sympathy for Quinn, etc. but it is a danger based on the language that has been used on this talk page and on the ArbCom page (particularly the talk page of the current decisions) that there may be a drive to "protect" these victims. We have to absolutely put down BLP controls to protect them, yes, but the implication of the tone of the talk page of the ArbCom discussion is something more than that. We have to treat the situation amorally, which is difficult here, it's not an easy thing, but it is possible. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

But we do have an objective section on what the views behind GamerGate are. We have a section that describes the GamerGate mindset and everything behind it, at least as well as we can for something as complicated and controversial as this. It is the current "political views" section, which has the analysis of numerous reputable sources who have gone over GamerGate's views, goals, opinions, and politics, and documented them in depth. (Most of them generally agree with each other, in broad terms, even -- as I keep pointing out -- the ones who can be generally described as 'friendly' to it. Pretty much all reputable sources that go beyond just describing it as a wave of harassment, at this point, are describing it as a culture war against what's loosely described as 'social justice.') You still have not really said what your problem with that section is beyond a vague assertion that it is not what GamerGate "really" says about itself; presumably you want us lead with a section that will initially ignore some sources in favor of others and say that these sources are what GamerGate "really" thinks while the ones down below are what "critics" say it thinks -- but that doesn't make any sense; all of our coverage, by definition, can only be based on analysis and criticism. GamerGate does not have one central mouthpiece, nor is there any obvious definition of the locus of the controversy; we must therefore rely on reputable secondary sources to collect and describe the views of people involved, which has produced our current generally-excellent political views section. What's your objection to that? --Aquillion (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Honestly, I like Masem's idea, but I feel like if we just talk about it, nothing will get done. Is it possible to have a "Second" draft, and have Masem lay out the whole article as he sees it in this new format, and then we can vote on it to replace the draft? That may be the best way to just go about it. Ries42 (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There's something much simpler we can do: simply move the current draft page into main article space, then use a new draft page for a proposed rewrite. Shii (tock) 08:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I revoke the above comment in light of the discussion below about keeping the page on full protection. We need to do something to enable collaboration while still offering a presentable page to the world at large, since this page is getting significant media coverage and is the number one result for "gamergate". Instead, maybe Masem and others can start work at Draft:Gamergate controversy/2. Shii (tock) 08:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of article mention in media

First, why?
When does a media source requiring to be a reliable source for wikipedia been a requirement for the usage of Template:Press? I have not seen anything where Frontpage Magazine is not a reliable source. Others may disagree with its political point of view, but that does not make it an unreliable source, just a biased one.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Frontpage is regularly determined to be less than reliable by WP:RSN - have you reviewed the archives? No comment with respect to the press template, because whocares. Hipocrite (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The press template isn't really part of Wikipedia, it's just an adornment we put on some article talk pages to make us feel good about what we do. If you can get consensus to put the FrontLine link up, go ahead. But it's not worth fighting over. The encyclopaedia is in that other tab. --TS 07:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if reliable, reading it doesn't give much to work with. It says "X won" but doesn't go into a lot of specifics. I'd keep it just to show that not all the press believes that "gamergate" is a "misogynist campaign against women," but I can't quite find a place to put it in the article. Can we agree to leave it in the sources for now and figure out if it can be directly used later? Ries42 (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Frontpagemag is not a reliable source and should not be used in the article. Hipocrite (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Conservatism references the WP:RSN determination that FrontPage Magazine is "not RS for factual info." A Wikipedia search of the project space (beyond my capabilities at this location) would be required to locate RSN discussions on this. --TS 16:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The historical citation from RSN. Hipocrite (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

WND and its associates are clearly among the least reliable types of sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Question/Comment: FrontPage is a reliable source for OPINION, not FACT. That's clear. A lot of the views expressed in this article are opinion. Some editors feel that if the opinion is supported by a significant majority of sources, it should be considered a "fact". My question is this:

• Does an opinion, which has become considered a "fact" because of support from a majority of reliable sources, then become immune to opposing opinions from sources which would be reliable for opinions, but not for facts? Ries42 (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Please review WP:V and WP:RS. This is reasonably clear. Frontpagemag is not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding lead section

The lead section seems to be very conclusional, as if GamerGate has ended and we are looking back on it. This is not the case at all; the news continues to report on the topic, for instance. I also have some issues with some of the claims made, such as "false allegations of ethics violations" which doesn't have any citation. What false allegations? At least a news article saying GamerGate has made false allegations would be appreciated. If Pro-GG wikipedia users aren't allowed to put stuff in without context, then why should Anti-GG users? BlookerG ^talk 11:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The false accusations in question are detailed in the history section. The quote from the lede is "Gamergate's origins in false allegations of ethics violations." This is because Gamergate's origins are false allegations of ethics violations regarding Zoe Quinn, which are described as false by all of the reliable sources that have commented on them, as detailed in the history section. Please focus on the content, not the contributors. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources are very "conclusional". They have looked at GG's "accomplishments" and likely hood of being able to have any future impact and made their determination. We follow them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

RedPen, that seems to be at odds with WP:SYNTH as I understand it. We report on the sources, but synthesizing it like that seems to be toeing the line, or maybe crossing it, seems to violate WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and maybe even WP:NPOV. I guess the argument I'm making is that a lot of this article might have issues with Synth, as a lot of hte article reads like the "bad example" of :The [Gamergate] stated objective is to [ethics or something], but since its creation there have been [harassment of peoples]. Ries42 (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

What text proposed or currently in the article do you believe violates WP:SYNTH, the elements of which are 1. Multiple sources 2. Combined 3. reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Please be sure to define each of the elements. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Not to get into specifics, but it seems like the areas this might be an issue would be things like the lede: Some supporters of the movement say they are concerned with ethical issues in video game journalism, but the overwhelming majority of commentators have dismissed the concerns it has focused on as being trivial, conspiracy theories or unrelated to ethics. While not directly sourced, we source all of those comments. SYNTH would likely prefer something more along the lines of: Supporters of the movement say/argue they are concerned with ethical issues in video game journalism. The majority of commentators, though, have dismissed the concerns it has focused on as being trivial, conspiracy theories or unrelated to ethics. Says the same thing, but separates the synthesis to remove the implication in WP's voice. (Note, I did remove some more... aggressive words, like overwhelming. I thought we took that out) Ries42 (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I asked you to get into specifics about violations of WP:SYNTH, so let's get into specifics. There are three elements to violate SYNTH - 1. Multiple Sources, 2. Combined, 3. Reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Please detail where something violates SYNTH by detailing the section and the elements. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Hipocrite: Please stop wikilawyering me, and being so pointy. Ries42 (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Please focus on the content, not the contributors. You are alleging synthesis. I'm asking you to show it to me, using the three point test for WP:SYN. Could you please do so? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Hipocrite: Please stop wikilawyering me, and being so pointy. Second request. Ries42 (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no syn in the single sentence as there are multiple sources which address all 4 of the components. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

But it does have language that falls into wording to watch, like the "overwhelming" that was removed above. It creates a tone that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I also notice there are mentions the end of the history section of at least some of the attackers potentially being trolls who want to stir up trouble, who don't support either side of the GamerGate debate and are tweeting abuse mostly through new twitter accounts to hide their identity. The lead says that the media has been focussing on attacks from GamerGate supporters, but there is no mention of the trolls. This seems to conflict. BlookerG ^talk 17:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The media has been focusing on attacks from GamerGate supporters. There are notable other opinions, however - specifically, the ones pulled out by the quote you reference. For example, Ice Cream, generally, is sweet. However, there are also savory ice creams, like [4]. The media has been focusing on ice cream as sweet. Hipocrite (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case, would putting "Some supporters say ice cream is savory, but the overwhelming majority of commentators say Ice Cream is sweet" because that's what the media has reported on a fair and impartial lede from a neutral point of view? Ries42 (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it would provide massively undue weight to savory icecream. See, for example, Ice_cream, which does not even mention savory ice cream. Hipocrite (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Now you've gone and confused me. I thought you were just making an analogy and I assumed were not intending to use "real life" stats in it. I.e., you made it a given that ice cream was notable for being savory. You then made the other given that media attention is that ice cream is sweet. My question was that, with those two items as given, wouldn't the above lede, that "X says ice cream is savory, but the overwhelming majority says ice cream is sweet" be inappropriate for the "theoretical" ice cream article (not the real one). Ries42 (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The analogy is that the media, and so our article, covers sweet ice cream even though savory ice cream may exist. The sources, and so our article, covers the toxic gamergate even though non-toxic gamergate may exist. It is not relevant to the overwhelming discussion of the topic.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly the response I was looking for. On this line of reasoning, does the fact that a non-toxic gamergate exists, although perhaps not notable on its own because of its lack of media coverage, become notable because the toxic gamergate is notable. Further, following that reasoning, can we make broad generalized statements against the toxic gamergate (which I feel like everyone agrees with, even myself), but have issues because although this article isn't intended to cover the non-toxic gamergate, it effectively lumps them in when generalizing? I feel like this is the crux of a lot of issues with this article, and if we can find a way to make that distinction clear that it will in general significantly improve the article. Ries42 (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED - just because you have an obnoxious notable uncle does not make you notable. And any "effectively lumping together" is because all parts of GG have refused to any type of organization or leadership or mission that would allow any "unlumping" . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Un-lumping would require WP:OR for the most part. — Strongjam (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that no source at all has defined the line between what is the GG controversy and the GG movement, because the controversy is about the movement's actions. It's not that the movement is not notable, but its that the controversy and the movement are, presently, the same topic. And because that movement is so central to it, it is not a fringe aspect of it, it just has not many sources that attempt some objective qualification of the movement. Per NPOV and UNDUE that means what we cover won't be a lot but the movement's aspect needs to be covered in a non-prejudgemental manner. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

This is totally unrelated to any suggestion to improve the article. I will close and hat it as unproductive in 15 minutes barring policy-grounded objections. Hipocrite (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. It is about what the topic actually is, and thus how that is properly represented in the lead. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a specific proposed change? What is wrong with the lede? Be specific and refer to the text. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

See the example given above by Ries which addressing one case of peacock wording. It attempts to complete dismiss anything objective about GG and "glorifying" the moral-wrongness of the harassment (including the use of the word "terrorism"). It makes the article take a side about which way WP is taking GG which we cannot do, and then when it introduces the objective information we have about GG, it immediately negates that with public opinion. The facts the lead presents are all correct, but the wording is specifically chosen to attack the GG side. --20:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I chose not to read anything by Ries42. Please restate any objections clearly, referring to policies and explaining how they were violated or are complied with better by alternative text, in your own words. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I also strongly disagree. We are discussing issues with the article, which is perfectly acceptable. BlookerG ^talk 20:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a specific proposed change? What is wrong with the lede? Be specific and refer to the text. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Like the article itself, it provides a big ego boost to Anti-GG users by basically saying the opposition is way more in the wrong. I focus on the lead in particular because it's the section the most people will see, a summary of a long article. All of the reliable sources seem to have a very Anti-GG opinion, so maybe my issue is not Wikipedia orientated. We should strive to find some more Pro-GG sources that are actually reliable. I also find it funny that in the History section, the line about "false allegations" regarding Grayson publishing "a positive review of the game" on Kotaku uses Kotaku itself as a source to show that Kotaku's in the right. There are a bunch of other sources on it too, so I think this one should be removed. Basically, I feel this article needs a hell of a lot of neutralising. Seeing as I've had to justify myself on my reasoning behind wanting to change the article, could you justify why you're ignoring Ries42? BlookerG ^talk 21:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

To clarify: the reason we use Kotaku as a source for that is that is the primary source which then other sources build on. It is completely appropriate in this specific context to use them with the other sources present that voice their agreement the allegation was false. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that we should be editing our articles based on who is going to like them or dislike them, rather based on what reliable sources say. If all of the reliable sources are saying things one way, then so will Wikipedia - and you state that all of the reliable sources have a specific slant, which means, unfortunately, that we will mirror that. Wikipedia does not lead opinions, we merely document what other people say. Kotaku is a valuable source that we should link to with respect to that citation - if they were the only source, I would agree that it needed further qualification, but since so many other sources agree with them, there is no need to remove what is a valuable citation or change the language. Finally, I am ignoring Ries42 because I find that reading him makes my day less good. Given that I'm not interpreting consensus or editing the article, I feel that ignoring people who make my day less good will improve everyone's day, on average. Hipocrite (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It is the case that reliable sources widely view Gamergate as being in the wrong. That reliable sources hold such a view is an indisputable fact. That some people disagree is interesting and should be noted in our article, but it cannot override the clear consensus of reliable sources and it must be subordinated to this clear consensus of reliable sources. Whether it gives an "ego boost" to anyone is not our concern as encyclopedia editors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not how we write articles; public opinion is not the same as fact. That GG has a hugely negative perception is important, cannot be ignored, and the negative criticism of GG has to be a majority portion of the article. But, we cannot act like the public opinion is the factually "right" answer, nor that the pro GG is "wrong". The controversy continues (albeit much slower than it started), and there's still no conclusion reached. As such, while the predominate of the opinion of the press will be the bulk of the content, it cannot be the tone we take with the article. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, harassment, death threats, terrorism and doxing ARE wrong. Claiming that "objective reviews" is an "ethical question" IS wrong. Stating that "Objective reviews would be those that only rate games on objective criteria like 'is it fun'?" IS wrong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying "harassment, death threats, terrorism and doxing" are right, nor was that what Masem was arguing. Its easy to strawman certain views and say they're wrong. Sure, "objective reviews" are not an "ethical question," but "conflicts of interest" are. Ries42 (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

They may be wrong, but first) WP is amoral, we cannot write articles based on this being "bad actions", meaning we can't take sympathy for the victims or judgement towards those that might have done the wrongdoing, and second) no single source has established factually that those that are asking about ethics changed have engaged in any of these activities directly, nor can we presume that. We can include all the opinions that because the ethics side of GG has not done enough to separate themselves from the harassment side as to be implicitly responsible for the harassment, but we cannot make any presumption that what the group that calls themselves the GG movement has done anything wrong for purposes of writing the article. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

We are not " taking sympathy for the victims or judgement towards those that might have done the wrongdoing". We are merely reporting that the sources have reviewed GG and have come to the overwhelming conclusion that what they have done is wrong. Our reporting those conclusions is "amoral". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes we are, by the means of the use of weasel/peacock words to prejudge the GG movement's side of the issue, as one example above, and by failing to cohesively describe their ethics requests in an objective manner (instead sprinkled throughout the article making it hard to follow); the argument against changing these has been because the predominate view ridicules the GG side we don't have to give them any respect. Being neutral and amoral we can't take that view or attitude; we should be documenting the group objectively to the best our sourcing policy lets us before letting in the wave of negative criticism about them set that part. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

We are not here to be gamergate apologetics doing something that they have failed to do for themselves. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Nor are we here to criminalize them just because the sources have opted to. --MASEM (t) 23:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources didnt criminalize them. The terrorism and harassment they conducted criminalized them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That's original research, and not acceptable. We can use the sources that are vastly negative of GG to show how much criticism the group got and condemn the harassment/etc, but that's it. We treat what actions were done in a neutral tone, either praising nor condemning even if the moral high ground says otherwise. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not original research. It is what the sources report - you know the threats against Sarkeesian speaking at Utah are literally criminal terrorist acts. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Not that I completely agree with Masem, but to be blunt... what criminal charges were filed and what criminal convictions were sustained? Has there been even one criminal prosecution during this whole event? Ries42 (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously contending that threatening to gun down an auditorium full of people is not a criminal terroristic act? (Here is a hint, I would DEFINITELY NOT suggest that you try it to find out for yourself)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying you saying it is not a criminal act. But I'm also not saying it definitely is. To use a little legal mumbo-jumbo, it actually may not be, based on a rather large list a things. The legal analysis for legal criminal threats requires certain things, including actual fear, and the fact that the FBI declared "no threat" and the fact that there was no "fear" based on the threat all lend to the possibility that said threat was not actually a legal, criminal threat. This link is to a California Criminal Defense firm that goes over a lot of ways a "threat" may not actually be a legal, criminal threat. Note, he is analyzing California law, and the threat you are referring took place in Utah, and I don't know exactly which Utah or Federal laws will apply. I said all of that to get across the point that a "criminal threat" is actually a very high burden to meet legally, and it is certainly possible that the threats that occurred in Utah may not be actually criminal in nature. You can argue it was criminal. Many people can. But it isn't factually criminal without at the VERY least indictment, and even then, it isn't confirmed criminal without a conviction. Here, we don't have any facts of that. Ries42 (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Your blithe justification of terrorism leads me to the same conclusion that Hipocrite arrived at. Good bye. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That isn't what I did at all, but thank you for the accusation. Ries42 (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is your point? I'm afraid I don't follow. What would you like done to the article? Would you like us to characterize the threat of a shooting as something other than criminal? I'm honestly asking, but I don't understand why you put so much effort into trying to argue that this wasn't a criminal act? SinglePurposePartier (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The actions are certainly criminal or approaching that in nature, and that itself we can't pretend to say anything less because it is a fact that issuing a fake threat like that equates to a crime. The problem is, we have zero idea who are the people doing the crime, outside of the fact that they often tie themselves to the gamergate hashtag. We have zero evidence (though I don't dismiss the possibility) that those that have harassed and threatened are the same that are arguing about ethics, despite the fact that a number of press sources go "Gamergate is guilty of this", more or less. There are several sources that do a very careful job not accusing GG as a whole for these things and stating that it is somebody using the GG hashtag, but then proceed to say that by implicitly supporting these (for example, continuting to call Quinn et al by disingenuous names, or not doing enough to styme the harassment) that the group is guilty as a whole, which is okay as an opinion but still again not fact. To that point, when we write about the GG movement objectively, we cannot presume that they have done anything wrong. Some of their actions, alone, speak for themselves, and others we'll definitely include the press's take on their faults, but we cannot presume this group is, in its entirety, out to harass women and others that speak for them. And that's what is the problem in this article - it's written with a tone that the GG supporters are bad people and that the press are right. We can't take that position at all. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that Wikipedia should take that view in the encyclopedia's voice, only that that view must be presented as predominant in our article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The point of that was pretty much a direct reply to RedPen's comment that "The sources didnt criminalize them. The terrorism and harassment they conducted criminalized them". The point of the topic there was to show that the reported actions themselves are not factually criminal because there is a difference between something that is factually criminal, and what may not actually be criminal (but may still be wrong). Criminal is a specific legal conclusion, one that isn't "given" at any point pre-conviction. With that being said, it is certainly not necessary to remove all mentions that characterize the threats as criminal, merely that they should not be in WP unsourced or be in WP's voice as facts. Someone can have the opinion that they are criminal, and that can very well be in the article. That was the nuance of the dicussion as I saw it. Ries42 (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I just want to make sure I understand. You're saying that WP cannot state in its own voice that threatening to shoot up a college campus because someone is giving a speech is a criminal act? I think you could not be further off the mark. I'd maybe understand if you were saying certain individuals could not be characterized as criminal due to the lack of any self-evident facts suggesting such, but to suggest that a threat of mass violence isn't a criminal act seems a bit far-fetched and quite an odd position to stake out. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand why you think its odd. Frankly it IS odd. But the law is a weird and at times contradictory beast. You can't have a "criminal act" without a criminal. You can say something is criminal in the abstract, sure, but criminal acts require context. For instance, it is certainly a criminal act to murder someone. But if someone is accused of murder, are they a criminal? What if that person is acquitted, are they still a criminal? It is easy to say a "terrorist act" is criminal, because technically it could be. However, its complicated by International law, but let's just say its a given. Terrorist Act = Criminal Act. Something has to then be proven to be a terrorist act, in order to be a criminal act as well. Lets assume that Joe Blow is the person who made the Utah threats. Completely made up person. Joe Blow is indicted for making them. He goes to trial, and for some reason, he is acquitted. Joe is not a criminal. And in that hypothetical situation, Joe's "threats" are also not criminal. However, if Joe IS convicted, he is then factually a criminal, and his threats are factually criminal acts.

It's like saying XXX is committing libel against me. It may certainly be true. I can accuse XXX of libel. But without a judgment, it isn't factually true that XXX committed libel. It would be inapprorpaite of WP to say on XXX's profile that he committed libel against me at any point prior to an actual judgement. WP could say that I accused XXX of libel (maybe, idk if BLP might be at issue there with just an accusation), but that's the nuance. Ries42 (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

"For instance, it is certainly a criminal act to murder someone. But if someone is accused of murder, are they a criminal? What if that person is acquitted, are they still a criminal?" No, but we're not talking about the person. We're talking about the act. It doesn't matter who threatened to shoot up the school, doing that is still a criminal act. What you seem to be suggesting is that a crime is only a crime if someone is caught, which is, again, an odd thing to argue. This is a remarkably pointless semantic debate and, again, you're mostly reasonable, so I can't begin to fathom why you're arguing this point. If we can't characterize a mass shooting threat as criminal without a debate, then what are we even doing here? SinglePurposePartier (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Its not an "if you get caught" thing, although I understand that may be closer to the truth than is wrong. Its simpler than that, there cannot be a criminal act, absent a "crime". We can't be sure that a crime occurred, for certain, without a criminal. Its still an opinion until its a fact. Hence why I said, in hypothetical, or in abstract, we can refer to something as "factually" a criminal act. But we can't describe something as factually a criminal act unless there are facts that show that it was actually criminal. Yes, the words are absolutely deplorable. Horrible. I can go on and on with my opinions of what they are. What I can't say, though, is that they are factually a criminal act. In fact, we have two-three big facts showing that they may very well NOT be a criminal act. I.e., the FBI's determination of no threat, the fact that Ms. Sarkeesian canceled not because of the threats but because of the gun control laws of Utah, and the threats themselves were never actually show to have caused an actual, real apprehension of fear. That isn't to say these AREN'T criminal threats. I want to be clear, it is certainly possible, maybe even likely, that they are criminal threats. But it would be incorrect to factually label them that. Ries42 (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, this doesn't seem to be based in any sort of legal reality. "We can't be sure that a crime occurred, for certain, without a criminal." Really? Tell that to any number of detectives attempting to solve homicides. Furthermore, the FBI determining there's no real threat to safety is not the same thing as them saying no one sent in a threat. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater and then use the lack of a fire as your defense against punishment. If we can't assert in wikipedia's voice that the threat of a mass shooting is criminal behavior, what can we assert? SinglePurposePartier (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, really. Criminal is both an adjective and an opinion until it is a proven fact. It can only be proven by a conviction. A detective can have his opinion. He can say "that damn criminal scum" that he is going after for a homicide. But a homicide can still not be a criminal act, if it is determined there are mitigating factors or other things. If that detective caught the person who was the cause of the person's death that he was searching for (Person X for clarity), but we find out that Person X acted in Self-Defense, and the dead guy was going to kill Person X if Person X didn't kill him right back, is Person X a criminal? Did a criminal act take place? Was there a crime?

That's how the law works. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is not criminal because of fire, shouting fire in a crowded theater is potentially criminal because it can induce panic and cause injuries to others because of that panic. The actual shouting of "fire" could be the criminal act. But you seem to be mistaken about something, you used it backwards. If there actually IS A FIRE, then shouting fire in a theater is NOT a criminal act. You can use the fact that there WAS a fire as defense against punishment. As to your hyperbole: we can assert facts. Opinions, even ones that seem 'common sense' should be attributed. It doesn't have to be a quote. It could be as simple as "the FBI labeled these threats criminal". If the FBI said they were criminal, then cite the FBI at the end of the phrase. If they didn't, then cite someone else. Ries42 (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, this is my stop. Back to the recent changes for me. I'd suggest someone come in and hat this entire conversation as it's drifted far off topic. I'd also suggest Ries focus less on trying to win a semantic debate and more on opening his mind up to the fact that he is arguing that threatening to shoot up a school is perfectly legal or otherwise justified. He seems to be under the impression that there are "mitigating factors" in which this act would be ok. There are no mitigating factors where it's ok to threaten to shoot up a school; even if it's an empty threat, it's still against the law. I'll WP:AGF that you aren't here for an agenda, and say this: no one is suggesting every Gamergate supporter is a criminal, or even that any Gamergate supporter is criminal. We are suggesting that threatening to shoot up a school is criminal, no matter who did it, and asserting that in WP's voice is obviously ok. This is the word's very definition: "Of, involving, or having the nature of crime." Threatening to shoot up a school fits all three criteria. Best of luck trying to convince other editors otherwise. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a strawman and I feel an inappropriate twisting of my words to say I am arguing that "threatening to shoot up a school is perfectly legal or otherwise justified". My argument is simply that there is a difference between opinion versus fact. You can't call something a fact, one way or another, unless its a fact. Whether something is for a fact criminal or for a fact not criminal (like not guilty ≠ innocent) is determined for a fact by conviction. Both (criminal or not criminal) are conclusions that are not supported by the facts as they have been presented. Both (criminal or not criminal) are opinions that do not belong in WP's voice as fact, and should be supported by the source that holds that opinion if it is in the article. I never said nor do I believe it was "perfectly legal or justifiable" I said it wasn't, for a WP fact criminal, it is an important distinction because I believe that some of the issue with this page is that opinions are being stated as facts and that doing so is making the page poorer in quality than it can be. Ries42 (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I can clear this up a bit. A criminal threat does not exist, in law, unless there is a credible actual threat. If someone says they are coming to your house to punch you in the face, and yet actually do nothing, that is a threat, but not a criminal one. Regarding the Utah State University threats, the FBI examined them in conjunction with local police and its Cyber Terrorism Task Force, assessing the email and its contents as representing "no threat" to anyone --- not faculty, not students, not the speaker Ms. Sarkeesian. Now, when an individual repeatedly threatens someone, that IS harassment, which MAY be considered criminal in many areas, but this is covered by local and state laws which vary as to what qualifies as prohibited conduct. I think it speaks more to Ms. Sarkeesian's credibility that the FBI not only said this USU email was "no threat", but also that it was similar to other threats she had reported in the past. Nonetheless, she has consistently repeated in major media outlets that this specific threat was and is credible, which itself should be considered for inclusion in the GG article as part of the MSM coverage segment. Calbeck (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Question on PetertheFourth's recent edit to the Draft

Edit in Question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AGamergate_controversy&diff=643769425&oldid=643701035 Peter, you removed the second part of a phrase because you said it is redundant. Specifically the phrase was "In First Things, Nathaniel Givens agreed that supporters were abandoning the hashtag, stating it was due to negative media coverage making the tag "toxic" regardless of the actions of supporters" and now it reads "In First Things, Nathaniel Givens agreed that supporters were abandoning the hashtag, stating it was due to negative media coverage making the tag "toxic" " which while technically correct, completely changes the meaning of the sentence. I disagree that the last line is redundant.

The line "regardless of the actions of supporters" implies that the tag's reputation as "toxic" will 'stick' so to say, whether the supporters do good or bad, and that is why people are leaving. Removing this loses the meaning as to WHY supporters are leaving, which is very important to the context of the phrase. I'm hoping you'll agree. Ries42 (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright. I can see where confusion could arise here. Would the rephrasing "but stated it was due to negative media coverage making the tag "toxic" and not because of other factors" or "not because of the actions of supporters" work? It seems to be very sloppy grammar wise to add the 'regardless' at the end, and I believe it would be clearer to phrase it as one of the two I've suggested, as well as establishing Nathaniel is disagreeing with some of the earlier points. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe change the second line to "no matter what supporters accomplished, negative media attention had made the tag "toxic"". I think that gives the correct paraphrasing of the source and is better grammar. Ries42 (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

it was not the media attention that made anything "toxic" - it was the repeated toxic actions waving the GG banner that made the tag toxic.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not what the source says. " Regardless of what gamers did or didn’t do, they were successfully painted as vicious thugs, and now the term “Gamergate” is toxic." According to the source, the label is toxic because gamers were "successfully painted as vicious thugs." I think "negative media attention" is a fair if mild paraphrasing of this point. Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've tweaked the paraphrasing. I think it's closer to what the source says, but critiscm is welcome. — Strongjam (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Added a comma, otherwise I think it works. Can I ask why it has an "undue" tag? Can we remove that? Ries42 (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD added that a little while ago. I don't feel that strongly about it (I think the bigger problem is the undue weight to Kain's WP:NEWSBLOG articles.) I'm okay with the tag coming off as there is no active discussion about it anyway. — Strongjam (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Would you mind removing it? Ries42 (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Shii (tock) 23:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm trying to get a feel of what gamergate is all about, but barely a few paragraphs into the article and I'm starting to have some serious doubts about how certain elements of the story are being presented and how sources don't convey the text used in the article. For example take a look at this paragraph from the History section: (emphasis mine)

Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post, described by The New York Times as a "strange, rambling attack",[7] containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson.[8] This led to false allegations from Quinn's detractors that the relationship had resulted in Grayson publishing a positive review of the game.[2][8][9][10][11][12][13] Kotaku's editor-in-chief Stephen Totilo affirmed the existence of a relationship, but clarified that Grayson had not written anything about Quinn after the relationship had commenced and had never reviewed her games, though he did acknowledge a piece written before the two began their relationship.

When a bit of text is overinked inline such as this is (7 times) I would expect that each of the sources would confirm the same facet; the allegations about the Kotqku reporter were false -- because that's what the article says!. All of them except one mention the Kotaku editor's remarks denying the charges, and the lone standout (whose usability as a reliable source is questionable at best, being an editorial piece) doesn't even try to reconcile the gamer gate allegations. This is a serious abuse of the sources, using Wikipedia's voice to state to the reader that the allegations were demonstrably false, when the sources themselves did not make this claim. This is easily fixed by simply removing the word "false" and let the reader decide for themselves if they believe the Kotaku editor and the those who accepted his findings, or those who are making the allegations.

Considering the epic disruption this article has caused I'm not surprised that there might be POV editors involved, but I am surprised to see what appears to be a glaring error so early in the article. Does the rest of the article play this way, or am I just missing something?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 07:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The allegations are demonstrably false, as most of the cited refs state in various wordings, and as these additional refs (and plenty more) make clear.

The Telegraph — Users from the messageboards Reddit – a sprawling series of communities – and 4chan – largely the trolls in the internet’s basement – hurled false accusations that Quinn exchanged sex for reviews. already cited

The Washington Post — It’s a movement based in false accusations against Quinn — that she traded sexual favors to advance her career — and mushroomed from there. already cited

Wired — an unfounded smear campaign involving the sex life of a female game developer

Canada.com — GamerGate faithfuls still cite Zoe Quinn and Kotaku Journalist Nathan Grayson as the motivation behind their movement, despite the allegations of collusion associated with Quinn and Grayson’s relationship being (repeatedly) proven false.

The New Yorker — Baldwin, seeking to point out an example of unethical journalism, linked on Twitter to a video claiming that a video-game writer had promoted work by the independent game-maker Zoe Quinn while the two were in a relationship. (This claim that has since been proved false.)

BBC — The posts detailed that Ms Quinn had had a relationship with a journalist at prominent games site Kotaku - prompting accusations from others she had done so in an attempt to get positive reviews for her game, Depression Quest. While the relationship happened, the review did not.

PBS NewsHour — Zoe Quinn, a game developer, was accused by her ex-boyfriend of trading sexual favors for receiving positive game reviews. Those false charges spurred a wave of rape and death threats online.

NY Magazine — There was no Kotaku review of “Depression Quest,” the supposed “scandal” of journalistic impropriety that allegedly touched all this off. already cited

On The Media — All of the accusations of sexual favors for jobs and favorable press have been debunked. In fact, the ex-boyfriend who made this very public website that kickstarted this whole thing has gone in to clarify that these accusations are unfounded. That people insist on harping on this developers alleged infidelities simply has nothing to do with the integrity of the gaming industry or the gaming press. cited in draft

Other sources to this effect: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], etc. etc. If we need to add and update sources, we should.

There's been extensive previous discussion of this issue in the archives, here, among other places. The sources say the claims were false, because it's easily demonstrable that they were — Grayson didn't write anything about Quinn after beginning the relationship, the end. I think several of the sources cited in that line are used to source the discussion of what the claims were, not to source the fact that they're false. I agree that we can and should add many of these additional sources to suppor the phrasing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The sources you present are not cited in the text above, whereas the sources that are cited, don't support the text they are supposed to be supporting. You can't just say, well we know the sources are out there, and then slap up any source. It's sloppy and it goes against the core values of scholarship, not to mention just plain old wrong.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 08:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree that we should add more sources, although I note that several of those above are already cited in the text, and I've called them out as noted.

Not all of the sources already cited in the text are there to support the "false" part — they are there to support other parts of the sentence and paragraph. If you think we should add more sources specifically supporting the "false" wording, and move/remove the others to a different section of the page, I would certainly support that.

And now that I take a look at it, the draft article has already had some of the refs for that wording moved around and upgraded. We've been stuck on a protected version on this main page for quite awhile now. I think we can pull the Slate reference out of that section, as it doesn't appear to support, really, anything in that sentence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok I just lost a bit of text in an edit conflict. I'm fine with this then. Im dead. Can you close or collapse this please?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 08:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbcom article

Mentions of the wikipedia edit warring have been appearing in news articles about GamerGate for a while, but usually just in passing. Although more focused articles about Jimbo's role exist [10] [11]

Today Guardian has published a piece on the Arbcom case, which i think given that events on wikipedia are very much part of the Gamergate controversy avoids MOS:SELFREF. But there are two problems. The first one is that the article is incredibly inaccurate. First of all its based only off of the original version of the Proposed decision, and doesnt note any of the changes made. It claims bans have already been put in place, this is incorrect. It claims 5 anti-GamerGate editors were proposed topic bans regarding all feminism topics, this is incorrect only 4 were, (and only 3 have had the topic ban pass). While Masem who claims to be anti-GG was proposed a topic ban later, it did not mention prohibiting edits to Also given that the article is pretty much just based off of a blog post by MarkBernstein who's accused Masem of running an evil cabal of 8channers, it seems unlikely the author was referring to Masem. So given how much of a wreck the article is and how much of it is just plain wrong, is it useable?

The second problem is: if it is usuable who's allowed to put information from it into the article? Would it mean that everyone who took part in the Arbcom case would have to keep WP:COS in mind when editing anything referring to it? Would it just be parties to the case? Bosstopher (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable source saying that The Guardian is inaccurate? If The Guardian writes about it, with their history of Pulitzer prizes, reliability, and editorial oversight, than I am pretty sure we should report it exactly as Guardian says. Obviously we have to mention this is the Guardian's opinion, and cite it as such, unless you think that's WP:UNDUE. I'm not completely certain. In all seriousness though its probably just undue unless we have more articles writing about the ArbCom case in particular. I vote for passing the buck. Ries42 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

We know the Guardian article is wrong because the ArbCom case is still open and all remedies have yet to be voted on completely. Trending towards the conclusions made, yes, but not there yet and some remedies can still flip on votes. Even given that, there's still not a heck of a lot appropriate to the GG topic here from these articles - a topic about the criticism of Wikipedia in general, possibly, but I yet to see any real point of substance of what WP's role has been in GG to date. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

We are under no obligation to use reliable sources that still get things wrong. If the Guardian chooses to publish something asserting the moon is made of cheese, we wouldn't include that in an article either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe everyone here missed the fact that Ries42 was being sarcastic. — Strongjam (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought the "In all seriousness" afterword would have indicated that. I was indeed being cheeky. Ries42 (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. To be fair, it's been impossible to tell as of late here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the arbcom really merits inclusion in the article based on one source (which printed prematurely.) Argument might be made for including something about Jimbo based on multiple sources, but I'm not convinced. Seems like a minor detail at the moment. — Strongjam (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The arbcom case is definitely not a minor detail. Copulative (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

At this point, no aspect of how Wikipedia has handled GG - short of Jimmy Wales' statements and even then to a small degree - has affected the GG situation, or at least what has been reported in RS. The case is important to WP, but from the topic of GG, it has little immediate relevance. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree with you, considering how much controversy the Wikipedia article itself has generated. Copulative (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I know in GG circles there is a lot of controversy, and here, I'll just point to the archive page count, but we have nothing from reliable sources that say that WP's article has had any role in the GG controversy. If anything, the stuff about Jimmy talking about the GG's try at their own version of a GG article, that's all about criticism of Wikipedia that involves the GG issue, but not a topic of the GG controversy. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

What about this portion from the The Guardian article? "The conflict on the site began almost alongside Gamergate" Copulative (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

How has the actions we have done here in the long-running debates and through ArbCom have had any direct influence on the GG controversy/movement? The only thing I think that even approaches a point of use is an explanation of how this and other GG-related articles have seen an influx of people likely siding with GG to try to change the way these articles are written, as part of the activities of the GG group -- but there's zero sources for that at all. To GG, this is a non-story, but it is a possible story in discussing WP in the media or criticism of WP. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It has direct influence because when someone doesn't know what Gamergate is, they're going to Google it and the first thing that pops up will be a Wikipedia article called "Gamergate controversy." Copulative (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely the issue the GG side has with WP, that's very clear, and that's why we've had lots of new editors trying to participate. But this is not at all documented in any reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

As I noted on the Arb page, the article is essentially correct; all they whiffed on was quoting Mark Bernstein saying "No sanctions at all were proposed against any of Gamergate’s warriors, save for a few disposable accounts", as there was only one; TDA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs) 17:34, 23 January 2015‎

A diff of Tarc's comment for the interested. — Strongjam (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any big problems in article accuracy, sadly. Artw (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I literally listed all the factual errors in the article, at the top of the section. There's a substantial number even excluding the Bernstein quote.Bosstopher (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing those as pretty minor quibbles or subjective on your part, TBH. Artw (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who didn't take part in the ArbCom case can add info from the article without breaking Wikipedia rules. Copulative (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It's really sad a source as respected as The Gaurdian published something that poor. Anyway it seems undue to go into any of the specifics anyway while there is only one source. HalfHat 18:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• You know what, I actually think this article is very good for something. Specifically, its factual errors point out that its author may not be deserving of the amount of weight this article has given him, and it seriously brings into question his reliability. Currently the Draft has three articles written by Mr. Hern. I believe there may not be anything directly questionable about those articles in a quick review, but perhaps they are not as rock-solid reliable as previous discussions have led us to believe. Ries42 (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I wrote the following in a separate section before I noticed this discussion:

Some people are saying it's inaccurate but I think that, nitpicking aside, this is as fair an account of the political dimension of the case as I could expect.

This one-off article probably doesn't merit mention in our article yet, because in the grand scheme of things Wikipedia hasn't been a big part of the controversy. That may change if many reliable sources start discussing the arbitration case. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. --TS 19:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not an accurate news piece at all. If you have particular feelings about Gamergate and this article, you might think the whole thing is being handled in a fairly one-sided manner, but as far as I can tell they're handing out various bans, admonishments, or other punishments to both sides pretty readily. I think Halfhat is on the topic ban list, the Devil's Advocate is on the ban list, Loganmac is there, and other users have had their existing bans confirmed. Anti-GG editors seem to be getting sanctioned, but there's politicking about it - especially for Ryulong. It looks like the article is being written based on Mark Bernstein's statements - and correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he involved with this whole mess? It's like if the Guardian did an article after an interview with Ryulong or NorthBySouthBaranof, which honestly would have made more sense because those two have done a lot of editing to the article.

My guess? It's politics. They're sounding the word that the article needs more anti-GG editors because a few of the current ones may get banned. Emphasis on the "may" part. YellowSandals (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it goes without saying that this article is extremely insulting to the arbitrators, who are volunteers, not Chief Justices, and have worked very hard to pursue a just resolution. If anything this is good evidence that newspaper sources are untrustworthy, and that this article won't really be decent until a greater number of neutral, uninvolved accounts are available. Shii (tock) 01:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's an article about it from the beloved Gawker: http://internet.gawker.com/wikipedia-purged-a-group-of-feminist-editors-because-of-1681463331/+cushac Copulative (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

If enough sources report on it, we'll have to cover it here eventually, but for now I think it'd be best to wait until the ArbCom decision is finalized, at least (which should produce most of the coverage if there's going to be more) -- it doesn't seem like something pressingly relevant or high-profile enough that we have to rush to add it on these few sources, anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been keeping up with the drama, but I just read the news and it's disappointing to hear that a determined group of trolls is pushing away a good group of editors. Sorry I don't have a solution to propose, it's just sad to hear. --Frybread (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do not call arbitrators "trolls." They have had to deal with this case for several weeks and are trying to find the best solution to multiple groups of editors whose actions might be deemed problematic. This case isn't a win for anyone, so I will apologize if that sounds snippy. To get back on track, do you have an opinion as to what we should do with the article? --Super Goku V (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not the Arbitors he's calling trolls, it's certain editors involved in the dispute. Just to clarify for him. HalfHat 18:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is the following: I do not believe that the article should be included as a source at the present time. It appears to make several mistakes: Implies that the case is over, implies that there was a preliminary decision, states that arbcom has sanctioned anyone, etc. It fails to disclose that Mark Bernstein has an indefinite topic ban on discussion and edits to Gamergate related articles. I feel that the author of the article should have confirmed a few things before this could be a reliable article. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement with this statement by Super Goku V. We can dismiss even reliable sources articles on a case by case basis and this is one of them. The article has several factual errors and sources statements from an editor who has been topic-banned for his involvement in the dispute. There is little doubt in my mind that at this point this Wikipedia article itself, ArbCom, and the history of this article have become a part of the controversy, but this source is not accurate enough for inclusion about it. Reporting about a controversy over a Wikipedia article on the article itself is also a tricky situation that I think would require more community oversight before it is attempted, if a factual reliable source comes up about it. Weedwacker (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not then further investigate whether a source provides "evidence" — we are encyclopedia editors, not investigative reporters. If reliable sources say something is true, for our purposes it is true." So which is it? Do we have to check if a source is telling the truth before using it or do we not? Or do we decide that based on which narrative we're pushing now? Akesgeroth (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You are conflating two different issues. On this topic, we have only a single reliable source thus far presented and it is reasonable to discuss whether we should write an encyclopedia section based upon only a sole source, or whether we should wait to find out if other reliable sources chime in on the issue and what they have to say. We don't have any reliable sources saying that that source is wrong, but we don't have a consensus of reliable sources to say it's right, either. The more sources we can cite on a particular issue, the more likely we are to avoid issues of undue weight and the more likely we are to appropriately reflect the prevailing mainstream viewpoint of an issue. On the other hand, the issue you cite in your post is not a matter of a sole source, but of a clearly-established and overwhelming consensus of multiple reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

So if a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes the truth? Akesgeroth (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

We are not truth finders. — Strongjam (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

And we are not obligated to put falsehoods in the article simply because traditionally reliable sources decide to promote them, either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

And the inclusion of any material is subject to editorial discretion, and using a single source for anything this controversial is not best practices at any rate, thus I agree that we should avoid including this issue until we have a wider array of reliable sources from which to support an encyclopedic section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

So if you have any reliable sources to support your claim that something is a lie, then you'd present them here. That you haven't suggests that you don't have any reliable sources to support your claim, and that it is little more than your unsupported personal opinion. Wikipedia is not a platform for personal opinion, nor is it a platform to right great wrongs. I believe that you have a deep-seated and good-faith belief that it is a lie, but that's not how we write encyclopedia articles. It just isn't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

IT KEEPS HAPPENING. [12] Bosstopher (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, this is funny. I think at this rate the GG ArbCom case will become so notable, that we'll have to report on it. And then... wait, do we have to post information that is factually not true because its been reported on so much. I mean, this is The Guardian we're talking about. Even if we KNOW its wrong, for instance, the Arbitrators themselves can say it was factually wrong, are our hands tied? Ries42 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that the Guardian article utilizes only one source on the GamerGate article, that being a person with multiple bans re: the GamerGate controversy, it would almost be pro-GG to use the article itself as a "reliable source". Indeed, it almost comes across as a means to inject that person's PoV back into the article by way of getting a news organization to quote him about it. Calbeck (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Pro GG in what sense exactly? Mr. Bernstien, the quoted source, was not Pro GG. If you mean "it proves the Pro GG narative," well, that doesn't really mean anything. Plus, if The Guardian felt it was reliable, we are supposed to not question that. This falls out in one of three ways. 1) Its not notable enough, and thus, no inclusion. 2) It gains enough notability and it is included as the Guardian says. WP:VNT takes precedence, where despite some things not being completely "correct" we report it as The Guardian sees it. 3) We agree that the falsities in the article outweigh its notability, and we challenge the reliability of it. Most likely the target of the unreliability would be the author, not The Guardian itself. Ries42 (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Has there ever been a precedent where the press is so obscenely lazy, political, and unwilling to do research on a subject that there was no way to write to accurate article? For example, imagine James Cook comes back from Tahiti and and a scholar on his boat says that everyone in Tahiti is beautiful and willing to have romance with any European. Afterward everyone began reporting on that and spreading that lie because it was juicy and sexy, and for years people thought Tahiti was some island of nymphs. Is it possible that maybe a lot of the news doesn't actually care that much about video games or video game culture and they just want to report on the juicy stuff? We've had people both pro and anti-Gamergate say they were harassed and sent death threats, but the press has only talked about the women - we can't really report anti-Gamergate harassers because it's only being discussed in social media and not on the BBC. Maybe there runs a possibility a lot of sources are just off-handedly reporting a sexy narrative that's vaguely based on reality, but as with the stories of Tahiti, have much more mundane, banal origins. YellowSandals (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A thing to keep in mind: all the articles that I've seen about the ArbCom decision all extend/source directly the Guardian article and then subsequently MB's blog posts. It is effectively the same single article, just in the telephone-game of slight variations from message to message. Let's not yet throw the baby out with the bathwater though we should be aware that the article and its small mutations are creating a stir on the social media that we might have to deal with. --MASEM (t) 07:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if the information in the article is 100% accurate (I haven't read the article, and I haven't cared enough about this issue in several months for it to be fair for me to comment) and even if we view the source as reliable, we still can't use it in this article because doing so would amount to our article indirectly citing itself (albeit through an article quoting a participant in an arbitration regarding the Wikipedia article citing). I forget the acronym, but I seem to remember it being a rule here that we can't cite reflexively. If it isn't, it should be. Quodfui (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd also just like to point out that all of this goes to the point I made October 23rd. We're being used by the Guardian as a primary source in a controversy we're ostensibly reporting on. Quodfui (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That said, I think the Guardian article is important and should be included on Wikipedia, even if not here. Is there an article on discussion of Wikipedia in the media? Quodfui (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As the Guardian article is factually inaccurate, I don't see it getting any play here currently. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The article reflects very real concerns about the effect of the ArbComm on Wilipedia and the claims of falsehood are massively overblown. Artw (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

And as those concerns are based on very real falsehoods, including who is getting banned and the attitude of Wikipedia toward specific points of view, it's not worth discussing at this point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much every sentence about the Arbcom decision contains some factual error. The headline of the article is "Wikipedia bans five editors from gender-related articles " which is factually inaccurate in that only 3 (possibly 4) are being banned, and from articles on gender related disputes not on gender altogether. This means the 3 (not 5) editors have not been banned from making corrections to feminism articles. Also none of the editors have actually been banned yet. Then quoting Mark Bernstein it says only throwaway GG accounts were sanctioned, which is incorrect, and that there will be no feminists left editing the article, which is also incorrect because I consider myself to be a feminist (although Bernstein admits this is by his own rough count). Everything from that point onwards about wiki-politics being super toxic seems fair enough. While whats written written may sound vaguely true all the specifics of fact are completely wrong. Bosstopher (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

New Daily Kos Article

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/23/1359740/-Dear-Internet-Can-we-please-stop-harassing-women-online#

Not sure how reliable Daily Kos is. Interesting article, this time of a quote-unquote "Pro-GG" person being harassed and doxxed. Might be worth inclusion. Ries42 (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

User generated content is not reliable. Hipocrite (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pretty sure it's not WP:RS, not that familiar with the Daily Kos structure, but I believe this a diary from a user, effectively a WP:SPS. — Strongjam (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, did not realize that. Ries42 (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Add Category:Wikipedia pages referenced by the press

Please add Category:Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
Latest entries therein relating to Gamergate controversy are dated 23 January 2015. JohnValeron (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Citations needed.

"The harassment came from social media users, particularly those from 4chan, 8chan and Reddit using the #gamergate hashtag. These attacks often include anti-feminist and misogynistic rhetoric, and have heightened discussion of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community." Quoted from article Exefisher (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:LEDE stuff in the lede of the article doesnt have to have a citation as long as the information is repeated later on in the article. The entire article is proof that discussions about sexism and misogyny have heightened. As for the other stuff, mentions of harassment on 4chan 8chan and reddit are kinda dispersed throughout: such as the thing about Brianna Wu being doxxed on 8chan, but perhaps its not enough for a lede mention. Also it could mislead readers into thinking 4chan still allows discussion of GamerGate. The current draft sentence is: "These attacks, which were often performed under the #gamergate hashtag or by people connected to it, ranged from online harassment and death threats to threats of terrorist attacks, and were frequently coordinated and promoted within subforums of social media platforms such as Reddit and 8chan." I like the phrasing of this one less because it implies the terrorism threats (the uni shooting) were coordinated on reddit and 8chan, which nobody has claimed they were. As it stands I am incredibly bad at summarising and cannot think of a better alternative. Does anyone have suggestions for an alternative sentence. Bosstopher (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protect the article?

Now than the bans have been handed out, any chance the article will be reduced to a semi-protection level, anytime soon? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Case isn't officially over yet unlike what The Guardian wants you to believe. Avono (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. I'd perused the Arbcom wiki page and it looked like the decisions were all handed out, but I'm sure I misunderstood... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

There's some foregone conclusions there, but they look more like grounds for continuing protection rather than removing it. Things are about to get very messy. Artw (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I like how the current method is: editing the draft article and then establishing consensus for a merge to the mainspace article (like a more sophisticated pending changes). Avono (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that is going to be how things continue to work going forwards. Artw (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I see. I didn't think of that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Once activity drops down on this I say that solution would probably not really work, but that has happened yet. HalfHat 18:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I am in agreement that the current method (draft space workup) is the best method to handle this situation right now, particularly in light of the articles being written about the decision that is likely going to draw attention, both sides, to this. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it bad form to add a category I'd like to create for Category:Women and video games to the draft version of the article? I feel like it is. And do we think someone will have time soon to sort through the various edits that have already been made to the draft article? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Categories can be added, but for technical reasons please add your new category within the comments that surround the other categories at the end of the article. --TS 20:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, there they are. I suppose it's better to wait until all the pending changes are implemented -- or not. There's already a backlog for the admins to sort through, on what I suppose will be a case by case basis. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No, if the main article becomes unprotected (or semi-protected) the next thing that happens will probably be that an ordinary editor will copy the latest revision if the draft overt the main article, removing the comments at the top and bottom which conceal notices and categories for technical reasons. You can either wait for that or you can add the new category now. If anybody disagrees they'll remove the category and discuss it here. Administrators play little or no part in editing decisions about the contents of articles they perform administrative actions on. --TS 21:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. So when the full protection expires in a couple of days I expect normal editing to resume, strictly observing all Wikipedia's policies and welcoming newcomers. If there are any problems, WP:AE will turn out very useful. --TS 20:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I see little point to having a couple of hours of edit warring before the protection is inevitably restored. I don't believe WP:AE will be helpful in preventing that, possibly the opposite. Artw (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you intend to edit war? If not, why assume others will edit war? If anybody does, that's where WP:AE comes in. There is no need to protect the article now that everybody knows what happens to people who treat Wikipedia articles like a battleground. --TS 21:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

if your best case for what will happen when the article is unprotected is that SPAs roll in and rework it because regular editors have been blocked or will be blocked if they oppose them then I'm absolutely in favor of the article remaining protected indefinitely. Artw (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we can have a pretty solid assumption that people will edit-war over this article. I would definitely prefer to keep it protected. The Land (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Tony, we all know that the moment the protection goes away, Gamergate trolls are going to start vandalizing the article. It's what happened before and, if you looked at any of their threads on the topic, they're just waiting for the chance to do so. At the very least, we should keep the article on semi-protection, so they won't be able to vandalize anonymously and will have to at least put the minimum amount of effort into their SPA accounts. Silverseren^C 23:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I think semi-protection might be appropriate, but we can't leave an article fully-protected forever. And, truthfully, it's not as though Wikipedia has never had to handle articles about controversial (even internet-controversial) topics before. If you're worried, the best thing to do is to keep an eye on the article and make sure to check in every so often. --Aquillion (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Fwiw, I don't think Wikipedia has ever had anything quite like gamergate to deal with before, in terms of committed, organized, collective action. I'd agree with those above that keeping the page protected indefinitely is the way to go. NoahB (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That's just not true. They're not as well organised as most actual organisations and there aren't that many who are committed enough to present a serious challenge. And we're Wikipedia. We don't preemptively full protect any article. Even Barack Obama and George W. Bush aren't fully protected. I'd prefer both talk and article to be unprotected, until a need for protection is established based on fresh evidence, but we can go with both semi-protected if that's how we feel.

We shouldn't, as Wikipedians, ever preemptively say we can't trust people to edit and justify that by arguing that "everybody knows" it won't work. If we hadn't trusted people to edit, Wikipedia would not exist. --TS 17:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

WAM

The draft includes "In November 2014, Twitter announced a collaboration with the non-profit group Women, Action & the Media (WAM), in which those who believed they have been harassed over Twitter can report harassment to a tool monitored by WAM members, who would forward affirmed issues to Twitter within 24 hours. The move, while in the wake of the Gamergate harassment, was due to general issues of the harassment of women on the Internet, and the data will be studied for further discussion." however I'm not seeing where either source supports the collaboration "was due to general issues of the harassment of women on the Internet". Can someone please quote the exact text that does support this? --Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 03:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal says The announcement comes amid an intense spotlight on the treatment of women online. A recent Pew survey found that 40% of Internet users in the U.S. said they had been harassed online. That spotlight is now dominated by “GamerGate,” a controversy that has included threats of rape and death against women who are critical of how females are portrayed in videogames. But “the issue has been going on long before GamerGate,” Friedman said. Slate says "A recent Pew research study found that fully 25 percent of young women have been sexually harassed online and 26 percent have experienced stalking," writes WAM! leader Jaclyn Friedman. "What’s more, Pew found that women overall are disproportionately targeted by the most severe forms of online abuse." This is something that many women have been enduring for a long time, but Twitter abuse has gotten quite a bit of attention in recent months due to #GamerGate and the ugly harassment Robin Williams's daughter Zelda. Woodroar (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if we where to combine the two sources (which we can't) they still don't say Twitter did X because of Y. The sources are speculating, whereas the article is definitive. Perhaps we should say "the announcement coincided during a period of intense focus on the treatment of women online", which is a more accurate replay of what the WSJ said?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I really think that's stretching to beg for more exactness. The tone and writing of both articles are clear this was made in response to harassment of women on the internet which predated GG but became more poignent from it. Every article about this news from around mid-2014 is clear that this is a reaction to increased gendered harassment. A better question to ask is what is your challenge with the statement? --MASEM (t) 04:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

If it is clear, then we need sources that clearly says this. Shouldn't be too hard if what you say is true. My primary "challenge" is that you are inferring a conclusion contrary to what the sources provided actually say. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is the original press release. "Women, Action & the Media (WAM!) has announced an unprecedented collaboration with Twitter, aiming to cut down on the harassment of women on the popular social media platform." It is pretty clear that they establish there is general gender-driven harassment of women through Twitter and they want to cut it down. Our statement collaborates with that. --MASEM (t) 05:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Why don't we use that in conjunction with the WSJ source, and remove the (IMO) lesser reliable Slate source. That would alleviate my concern.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 06:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds eminently reasonable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A legitimate use of WP:PRIMARY! --TS 17:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

self-reporting?

What is Wikipedia's policy when it is itself the subject of news stories?

It's worrying to see an editor talk about "what the Guardian would have you believe". Of course, that newspaper is a reputable source, while a Wikipedia editor's perception of the wbesite's inner workings is not.

Distingué Traces (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

See WP:SELFREF.--TS 05:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request

@Tony Sidaway: An edit request was made here, but was automatically archived before it received a response. See Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Archive_21#Protected_article_edit_request:_sync_draft. Please discuss/re-request as needed.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  05:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The article full protection is set to expire tomorrow so no further action is required. We can review the situation if the full protection period is extended. --TS 17:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Women and video games

Hi again, another edit request, I guess: I've created Category:Women and video games, and added it as a hidden category on the Draft version of this article. If there's any way to add it to this protected article, I'd appreciate it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, you mean a category that is currently commented out in the draft (a hidden category is something else).

The full protection will expire tomorrow (unless an admin extends the period of protection at the last minute) so I guess the article will then acquire your new category at that point either through your edits or somebody else's. --TS 16:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'd meant. Thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Missing definitions

I'm not a Wikipedia editor, just a user who came here for information. I tried to read the article, but ended up confused. It starts off referring to the "Gamergate controversy" but then speaks of "gamergate supporters" without explaining what this means. Further on, it speaks of a "Gamergate organization," but only describes it in terms of having no defined goals or leadership. I can't even tell which side of the controversy "Gamergate supporter" are on or what it is they support, nor can I tell what the "Gamergate organzation" is or what the term means. 162.247.60.131 (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a good point. I only became aware of this controversy recently and had much the same reaction. That said, I realize how difficult it is to say anything about what Gamergate is, in clear simple English, given the charged nature and the polarized views on this group. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Making a bold attempt to clarify this in the lead now... Comments and criticisms are welcome here.--Carwil (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The uh... the article has striven so far to stress the fact that Gamergate is morally wrong and has no basis, organization, or reason for existing. Except to harass women. The prevailing argument for this approach has been that the press is predominantly doing this and it would be UNDUE to not do the same thing the press has done. However, there's a good article explaining, in the broadest sense, what's going on with this movement, controversy, or however you'd like to refer to it. The conflict being faced is that there's not a unified viewpoint on what Gamergate is about - the press has focused on the juicy, emotional stories about women being harassed by a gang evil forum-goers, but originally the thing probably gained steam and notoriety because of DMCA abuses, which haven't been reported or discussed much so I'm not even sure if that's included in this monster of an article.

I guess the thing to understand about this article is that it's about the most dramatic and controversial aspects of Gamergate, but currently it's highly partisan, very politically written, and it won't do well in explaining what, why, or how this became a major internet phenomenon. Some editors feel there is no point in trying to examine the subject because the cause is misogyny and misogyny is self-explanatory and conducted for its own sake, perhaps as according to a number of cynical sociological models for human behavior. However, in the past, a number have expressed concern with the fact that an accusation of "misogyny" requires context and perhaps even specific individuals to describe as misogynistic, as otherwise we're only predicting or speculating on the motives of people neither met nor directly spoken to. YellowSandals (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)