Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Sanctions enforcement

All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to discretionary sanctions.

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

re: "online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan from a vocal minority"

My revert of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gamergate_controversy&diff=645645952&oldid=645645463 (gah I don't know how to make that pretty) was reverted by Avono. The sense of the German article does not support attaching from "a vocal minority" next to "Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan". Later in the Der Bund article, "vocal minority" (as translated) is used, but in a sense that who is or is not doing things is not clear. I don't think the article supports Avono's edit. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave this to German speakers, although it would be helpful if someone was able to pull the relevant quote (and translation) from the article If that's possible.

This does raise the question, again, of if we really need all of these sources. In an article with 169 references (and counting), does this German-language article provide us with anything not present in the plethora of English sources? AtomsOrSystems (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I speak German. Google translate does an OK job on this page, you can check for yourself. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

*relevant quote 1* This opinion war takes place online. Locations are posts in forums, social media or comments orchestrated and email protests. A minority also attacks on anonymous attacks on critics and dissenting means of online stalking, Wikipedia vandalism and threats of violence.

*relevant quote 2* What it is about at GamersGate, depends on the interpretation of controversy. The activists and supporters of GamersGate imagine themselves in the war against a major media conspiracy that would "Gamer" brand it as sexist and accusations of conflicts of interest gaming press ignore. Affected journalists and critics, however, see a vocal minority of conspiracy theorists at work. The debate is diffuse. That GamersGate activists are not a homogenous group, making the situation any clearer.

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Is that a reason to exclude it? Der Bund is a reliable source. My main problem with including it is that it makes it hard for other editors to check the citations easily.ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NONENG is the policy. Basiaclly no reason to exclude it, although we should prefer an English source (as this is English Wikipedia) if it fills the same role. — Strongjam (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's a reason to exclude it, at all. I just think it's one more prod for us to consider the reference bloat on this article. Either way, probably not a discussion to have in the midst of this section. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate is a controversy over coverage of video gamers and players. A Part of this Community raises that the gaming press is interdependent with the gaming industry and that they are attacking their hobby. This opinion war takes place online at posts in forums, social media, online comments or through orchestrated email protests. A minority also resorts to anonymous attacks on critics and dissidents through Onlinestalking, Wikipedia Vandalism and threats of violence. Only thing not supported is "vocal" which I am going to remove. Avono (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Putting "minority" next to "Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan" is not following the sense of the article - it isn't talking about a minority of "Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan". ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This is some incredibly bad wordsmithing, and creates synthesis by putting the minorty next to the cites. I'm not going to revert, because I'm not the one starting the revert war, but this is a mistake being writ large. Hipocrite (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The "minority" reference is unclear who it is referring to. It is a minority of Gamergate, not a minority of those groups (although that is also true). Either way it just doesn't read well. Koncorde (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

well somehow we have indicate that not all of gamergate is responsible for the harassment. Maybe These attacks were primarily performed by a minority within the movement? Problem is that movement is defined afterwards. Avono (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

If that was what you were trying to get at, then I'd say if the German source was the only source that got at it, then it's not adequately verifiable. I don't see that the German source absolves Gamgergate supporters of responsibility, merely that the harassment was not actually engaged in by thousands. Hipocrite (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

1) If the goal is somehow state "that not all of gamergate is responsible for the harassment" - it should be it's own sentence somewhere. 2) It will need a citation other than this Der Bund article, because it doesn't support that idea in any clear fashion. Also, that article's information appears to be dated (2014 Oct 10) in a way that would be superceeded by later information. ForbiddenRocky (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

"by a minority" (minority of who?) by itself reads incredibly poorly, so I'm going to remove it for now- feel free to reinsert if you can come up with a way to word it that doesn't detract from readability. (Also: Doesn't 'at times' imply that only some people would be co-ordinating it there, anyway?) PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd also point out that the Bund article appears to be an editorial; that means that it can be cited for the author's opinions, but cannot be cited for matters of fact. (That is, we can use it to say "this person thinks XYZ", but we cannot use it to say "XYZ is so".) Either way, it seems to me that putting the 'minority' wording in the lead solely based on one article would give WP:UNDUE weight to that source. --Aquillion (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I have located more sources.

1. The Washington Post: "Both mainstream gaming critics and many Gamergate supporters insist the brutal trolls are just a small, vocal minority. There’s plenty of social science to back that up, too: We know that people are more aggressive, more argumentative and more nasty when they’re permitted to comment on something without using their real name." (this directly supports both "vocal" and "minority")
2. The New York Times "The more extreme threats, though, seem to be the work of a much smaller faction and aimed at women."
3. The Guardian "In other words, the movement is focused on 'ethical problems' in games journalism; the harassment which is endemic in gamergate is then blamed on 'a much smaller faction'...The Gamergate line is that it vigorously self-polices, tracking down rogue elements within the movement who harass women, and telling them to stop." (he appears to be summarizing the NYT article)

So that's three more sources on top of Der Bund. Is this weighty enough for inclusion in the article? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that Gamergate is already described by us as an "anonymous and amorphous movement" because our sources belabor that point. Of course not every Gamergate supporter is harassing women, just as not every Gamergate supporter is calling in threats, or reporting threats, or donating to TFYC, or participating in Operations, or posting on 8chan or Reddit or Twitter. Our sources bear this out. Making that point only when it comes to harassment is like us writing "reliable sources report..." only about the harassment. Woodroar (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I see what you're saying -- we can't qualify everything in the article. But the current sentence is very confusing. Is the "anonymous and amorphous movement" synonymous with users of the GamerGate hashtag? Isn't is a bit redundant in its current state? It's akin to saying "the anonymous users of these boards are amorphous and anonymous, and conducted an anonymous harassment campaign using a hashtag anonymously." What exactly are we trying to say? The sources say this: 1) The initial round of harassment took place using the gamergate hashtag. 2) The attacks were coordinated anonymously on 4Chan, 8Chan, and Reddit. This goes back to the problem that there is not even an attempt to define the GamerGate movement in the first paragraph, so we get "Here's the bad stuff they did" before we even know who "they" are. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I personally think our present course is imperfect but the most appropriate for the subject. Gamergate isn't organized, so we're left describing general trends and activities rather than something precise. In a lot of ways, it's like the black bloc. I wouldn't draw too many parallels, just that "this is what we call it; some people did this; some people did this; some people did this; and there may be overlap between any or all of those people". Woodroar (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Then by your own admission the article is deeply misleading, harassment is not a general trend in gamergate, as is verified by all sources that have bothered to attempt to verify such claims. PavePenny (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. Harassment is a widely-reported element of the movement, whether or not every single member engages in it. Woodroar (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Widely reported does not equate to widely practiced, and article needs to reflect this. PavePenny (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The article needs to reflect the reliable sources, and what they report. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ^(TALK) 00:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

If the information a source reports on is not verifiable then the source is not reliable. You are attempting to use wikipedia policy to mask your own confirmation bias and frankly it's shameful. PavePenny (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I know you have the information on how a source can be used, and what makes it reliable or not, because I have personally shared them with with you. If you actually want to make constructive change to the article, I would like to once again suggest that you offer something more than empty words on the talk page, with no actual backing in anything other than your opinion. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ^(TALK) 02:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

My opinion when expressed has been backed by fact, your impotent bleeting about the reliability of sources has not in any instance refuted a substantive claim I've made. Your involvement in this article is to the detriment of the project, either take your responsibility to edit it to fairly represent verifiable fact or step away from it and allow someone competent to have a go. PavePenny (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The point where you personally attack me is the point where I'm going to stop responding, so this doesn't escalate. However, I would like to ask you to consider what it means that you think you know the "facts," and yet have been unable to provide any reliable backing. As has been said before, I would love to edit this article based on what I know to be true; I suspect others wouldn't be so happy. I also am not sure it would be best for the article. That's why we base everything in reliable sources. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ^(TALK) 03:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

PavePenny, I respectfully request that you cease all personal attacks on other editors, and assume good faith unless you have rock solid evidence to the contrary. If another editor engages in indisputable misconduct, discuss their behavior at the appropriate administrative noticeboard. Ongoing personal attacks are likely to lead to blocks or other sanctions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I mostly concur with Woodroar. However, if you think that more should be added for reasons not addressed by Woodroar's comments, I reiterate that it needs to be it's own piece somewhere and not appended next to "online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan". Which also to say, I'm not sure the current "anonymous and amorphous movement" belongs attached to the "online [...] 8chan" sentence, but this phrasing makes more sense than the "vocal minority" phrasing. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, descriptions like "anonymous and amorphous" definitely belong here. Please keep in mind that we're writing for everyone. Ideally, someone who's never heard of 4chan, memes or lulz should be able to understand the jist of this article. Be careful not to over-prune it.

Peter ^Isotalo 02:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Review of Reliable Sources

My most esteemed colleagues, I would like to share my latest research with you. I have scoured the internet for articles about the GamerGate controversy, focusing primarily on news organizations that are considered highly reliable, with editorial control and a solid reputation for fact checking. For the purposes of this research I have deliberately avoided online news blogs, such as Wired, Slate, Ars Technica, TechCrunch, or any video game news sites. This is not because those sites are unreliable per se, but this controversy has received enough coverage in the mainstream press that I think we can focus on using higher quality sources with long-running, well-established reputations.

I have noticed that many content discussions on this talk page reference past consensus (you know, the consensus reached by the editors who owned this article, treated it as a battleground and have been topic-banned for it?), or seem to indicate that all sources agree with a certain position. This research is an attempt to address those issues directly. It will also be helpful to locate claims in the article space that may have been cherry picked from otherwise reliable sources. If we are going to edit based on a preponderance of sources, I feel we should be working from the most reliable sources available.

I found 62 articles in highly reliable sources that reported on different aspects of the GamerGate controversy. I investigated each article placed it in one of seven categories, listed below (with example articles in parenthesis):

• Overview -- a macro-level article examining the controversy ([1][2][3])
• Review -- an article covering how the controversy has been reported in the media ([4][5][6])
• Profile -- an interview or profile of an individual or specific organization affected by the GamerGate controversy ([7])[8][9]
• Column -- an opinion piece, typically written in first person, detailing a journalist's experience either investigating or covering the controversy ([10][11][12])
• Event -- a story about a particular event, such as the cancellation of Anita Saarkesian's talk at Utah State or the release of the ArbCom findings ([13][14])
• Business -- a discussion of the effects of GamerGate on the video game industry ([15][16][17])
• Study -- the results of a poll or study that may be tangentially linked to the GamerGate controversy ([18][19])

I decided to compile the articles I classified as Overviews and Reviews. Those two categories include articles that attempt to maintain a dispassionate, disinterested, neutral tone. The articles are also attempts to report on the entirety of the story, not just one aspect of it. While no doubt the rest of the sources would still qualify as reliable, I feel they should be used carefully and in full consideration of proper context.

Here are the reasons I did not use the other categories. Profiles are generally written from the perspective of one of the involved parties, which makes them inherently non-neutral for a controversial subject. Columns are written with an acknowledged editorial slant; also not neutral. Events are good for sourcing specific occurrences, but shouldn't be used to draw general conclusions about the controversy. Business and Study articles are also generally focused on a specific aspect of the controversy, and should only be used to source the applicable content.

Anyhow, here is the list I compiled, starting with the most recent. I would like to hear from you gorgeous people to see if I'm missing any obvious reliably-sourced overview/review articles, or if any of the articles I've identified as such should be reclassified or removed. Thank you for your time and consideration. Here are the 2220 high-quality references I found:

1. Gamergate: a brief history of a computer-age war The Guardian
2. GamerGate: How the video game industry's culture war began Al Jazeera
3. Gamergate and the new horde of digital saboteurs Christian Science Monitor
4. Video game world tensions erupt in 'GamerGate' AFP
5. Nobody Wins the GamerGate Civil War Bloomberg
6. How some Gamergate supporters say the controversy could stop “in one week” Washington Post
7. How do we know what we know about #Gamergate? Columbia Journalism Review
8. The Gamergate controversy The Boston Globe
9. GamerGate is happening because we let it happen Entertainment Weekly
10. Gamergate: A Scandal Erupts in the Video-Game Community The New Yorker
11. What Is #GamerGate and Why Are Women Being Threatened About Video Games? Time
12. Feminist Critics of Video Games Facing Threats in ‘GamerGate’ Campaign New York Times
13. Lazy coverage of Gamergate is only feeding this abusive campaign The Guardian
14. Behind the furor over #Gamergate CNN
15. The only guide to Gamergate you will ever need to read Washington Post
16. #GamerGate Is Not A Hate Group, It's A Consumer Movement Forbes
17. #Gamergate Controversy Fuels Debate On Women And Video Games NPR
18. With #GamerGate, the video-game industry’s growing pains go viral Washington Post
19. Gamergate-related controversy reveals ugly side of gaming community LA Times
20. Sexism, Lies and Video Games: The Culture War Nobody Is Winning Time
21. Zoe Quinn and the orchestrated campaign of harassment from some 'gamers' The Independant
22. GamerGate: A Closer Look At The Controversy Sweeping Video Games Forbes

This list is intended to be as comprehensive as possible, but I fully acknowledge that I may have mis-categorized some articles and completely missed others. Once we can agree on what constitutes the best possible sources for this article, I feel we may have a better shot at tackling some of the broad assertions made in the article space. Thoughts? Concerns? Additions? Subtractions? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

If we're going to use only the most highly reputable sources then you should drop the WP:NEWSBLOG from that list, as you've linked to it above. To be clear, that's the Erik Kain pieces. They're not Forbes articles, they're from Kain's blog published through their contributor model. Unfortunately if we cut out all NEWSBLOGs we're going to get a lot of people yelling about neutrality because of losing those. — Strongjam (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate targets launch anti-harassment network, The Guardian

When Jumping into Gamergate Turns into Fearing For Your Life, ABC News Nightline

Zoe Quinn: '#Gamergate has ruined my life. But I won't quit', The Telegraph

There's quite a few other reports which are much more recent than the ones above, and take a more holistic, looking-back-at-what-Gamergate-actually-was approach. No Matter How Dark (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Concur with Strongjam that the Erik Kain piece falls under WP:NEWSBLOG and (lacking any compelling reason why Kain's opinion is noteworthy here or why it should be included despite that) doesn't really belong on any list of the most-reliable sources. I'd be leery about removing too many sources in any sort of mass sweep, though, given the complexity of the subject; remember in particular that sourcing is contextual and depends on what you're citing (eg. citing the opinion of someone who is relevant to the topic can be done using a source that wouldn't be reliable for sourcing other facts.) If you feel that a particular source shouldn't be used or that a particular statement in the article is not currently well-cited enough, I'd ask that you create a specific section for that specific concern, or that you make one edit for that particular part directly, rather than trying to make any sort of overarching change -- one talk section or edit per removed source or area of the article you don't feel is well-cited enough, basically, not a sweeping "we're going to use these and remove absolutely everything else, then remove absolutely everything not cited to them." --Aquillion (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the Forbes feedback -- I have struck those articles from the list. I wasn't familiar with that model, but it explains a lot. I thought there might have been a few self-published articles hiding in the shadows -- looks like this issue had been addressed previously in the archives. As for the additions, I had categorized The Guardian article as a profile (it's about Crash Override), ABC News as a profile (it's about Anita Saarkesian and Brianna Wu), and the Telegraph article as a profile (it's essentially an interview of Quinn). I'm not saying those sources are unreliable, I'm just saying that articles written on a macro-level about the controversy should be used when drawing broad conclusions. And Aquillion, I'm not proposing a mass sweep or overarching change. I do think it would be helpful at some point in the future, but I'm just not nearly talented or patient enough to pull that off. I tried it a few years ago at Historicity of Jesus and it was an absolute shambles, and not at all worth the time and effort I put into it. This is merely my attempt to create a list of articles that the editors can agree are the highest quality reliable sources on the subject to address recent content disputes, such as the recent discussion about the definition of GamerGate, or to address longstanding issues with the lead. If we can agree that, yes, these are the highest-quality sources that address the controversy then we can start drawing more concrete conclusions on "what the sources say." ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's helpful to start trying to categorize highly-reliable sources and decide which ones we should use based on their content, never mind the long argument that might be had over what is and is not a "profile." This controversy ultimately isn't happening on a macro level, is it? It's happening to real, live people, and according to the sources, the most important and notable things it's doing are the attacks on people. Stands to reason that "profiles" of the people who have been targeted by Gamergate would be common and important in understanding what this whole thing is. No Matter How Dark (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, let me take a step back here because I think you might misunderstand the objective of this post. I am not recommending that we replace all references in the article with the ones I listed. I am not suggesting that we only use the articles I listed as references. I am not suggesting that any article I did not list should be ignored. I also did not suggest, at any time, that people are not real, live people. I've always believed, with all of my heart, that people who are affected by things are people who are affected by things, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a rotten liar. What I am suggesting is that certain articles are more appropriate to address sweeping, macro-level content questions, such as "Is GamerGate a movement?" "What is GamerGate?" "Does the lead properly reflect the article content?" "Have citations been cherry picked from sources?" "Should the GamerGate movement have its own article?" Because this controversy is happening on both a macro-level and a micro-level, like all things that happen, and the distinction in applicable reliable sources needs to be made. To your point, I would agree that for any and all issues relating to how Zoe Quinn has been affected by GamerGate, an article titled Zoe Quinn: '#Gamergate has ruined my life. But I won't quit' would be entirely appropriate. But to draw general conclusions on the controversy based on the content of that article would be inappropriate, due to WP:YESPOV, WP:RSCONTEXT, and WP:SYN. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I find the premise of this list odd. "For the purposes of this research I have deliberately avoided online news blogs, such as Wired, Slate, Ars Technica, TechCrunch, or any video game news sites. This is not because those sites are unreliable per se, but this controversy has received enough coverage in the mainstream press that I think we can focus on using higher quality sources with long-running, well-established reputations." Those excluded sites should be included for the depth they generally have WRT topics related to gaming and/or tech. This is supposed to encyclopedic - in that it has depth and breadth. Also, the fact that they are reliable sources means that they can and should be included if they have a detail not include among the sources in this list - also for many of the articles in the list the excluded sites are often the sources of their information. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Two points. First, not all reliable sources are created equal. This does not mean there are reliable sources we should specifically exclude, only that when we are drawing broad conclusions and giving statements of fact we should be using the best sources available. Do you seriously disagree with this? If the only source for a detail is a less-reliable source, then yes, by all means include it. But if there's a discrepancy between The New York Times and Ars Technica, you're saying we should just, what, flip a coin? How is the idea of "better" sources so difficult to understand? Maybe it will help if I start quoting policy. From WP:RS "'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact." From WP:V: "The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." From WP:OR: "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly." From WP:NPOV: "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements." (bold mine) Those quotes are from the core content policies which explicitly state we should be attaching a value to our sources, rather than just treating every source equally. I'm not trying to sound snarky, because I do honestly appreciate the work you've done here and I thank you sincerely for your feedback, but you should really familiarize yourself with these policies so posts like this don't come off as "odd" to you. The second point...well, I've already made the second point a couple of times, so instead of quoting policy I'll just quote myself: "I am not recommending that we replace all references in the article with the ones I listed. I am not suggesting that we only use the articles I listed as references. I am not suggesting that any article I did not list should be ignored...What I am suggesting is that certain articles are more appropriate to address sweeping, macro-level content questions". Anyhow, thanks for weighing in. If you find a reliable and contextual source that you feel matches the quality of the 20 I have listed, or if you feel that one of the 20 is unworthy, then I'm all ears (eyes). ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

There are fine points as well as "board conclusions" also is what I'm saying. I'm not seeing the purpose of this limited list. If it's not to exclude thing or point out unreliable sources, then as long as a source is reliable, it gets to be used within the article as long as it meets the criteria of Wikipedia. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

And thus the page gets all shitty over again... because the 'RSes' are just echochambers who echo just about a small part. And scrapping Kain's articles.... MicBenSte (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree here, if you guys look at the authors of many of the sites, you'll find interconnected relationships between writers, Leigh Alexander(TIME, Vice, Former Gamasutra) is a friend of Simon Parkin(The New Yorker). and Nick Wingfield(Times). I simple google search of two names together come up with this stuff. Leigh Alexander has written for Gamasutra in the past, who runs the Games Developers Conference, Leigh Alexander spoke at the GDC. It's all the best interests of these writers to say "The Games Journalists found no corruption taking place, GG is merely a hate group", I don't think its conspiratorial per-se. But simply friends doing favors for friends doing favors for friends. Kau-12 (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources that rely only on sources that are party to one side of any controversy cannot be rightly considered reliable. Chrisrus (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Google searching names to call people "friends" to then disqualify articles they have written is not how we evaluate WP:RS. The New Yorker has perhaps the single most solid reputation for fact checking and accuracy around. The New York Times remains basically the paper of record for the United States. Hipocrite (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If we're trying to figure out whether an article is worth using, we need to use editorial discretion. If we can choose between a variety of articles and find ones that do not show a possible conflict, we should obviously look to avoid them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

We do not determine "possible conflicts," by google searching for authors names and then MSPainting red lines. This is Not On. Hipocrite (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what "This is Not On" means, but we do use editorial discretion to decide whether to use a source on a regular basis. It's part and parcel with building a neutral, reliable encyclopedia article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You are speaking in platitudes. Why are you doing that? Hipocrite (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

A better question would be why are you avoiding the argument? PavePenny (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

1) So, "friendship" may be a factor of editorial discretion, but most journalists in a given newspaper will have some kind of acquaintance with each other, and most journalists in a given field will have some kind of acquaintance. Using "friendship" to exclude journalists as a hard rule will eliminate most journalists incorrectly. 2) Also, using NYT to discuss Leigh Alexander is OK; but using Leigh Alexander to discuss Leigh Alexander would be problematic, but we aren't doing that. 3) "It's about journalism ethics" therefore "we can't trust the journalist" begs the question: is it about journalism ethics of the cited journalists? If so, what is the way to address that? I think the fact that non-gaming journalists (e.g. NYT) have looked into the situation and written summaries of what is going on at least addresses that hypothetical. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

These articles are the work of professional journalists writing for highly respected news organizations with long history of strong editorial oversight. I agree that, in general, they tend to be slanted against GamerGate... but that's the reality of the coverage that GamerGate has received in the mainstream press, and that's what we use to build our articles. An argument could be made that the current Wikipedia article does not reflect the proper neutral tone of the articles I found, but those edits will need to be made on a case-by-case basis. Personally I feel that these articles are far more balanced than the stuff you'd see in other "technically reliable sources." The Washington Post articles, in particular, are written in a fair, balanced, and neutral tone. Same goes for the Columbia Journalism Review article. I actually liked the Leigh Alexander article in Time, as she generally shied away from the more evocative borderline-opinion-piece language deployed by The Guardian. There's really nothing in WP:RS about journalists being friends, and that seems to be a very difficult standard to establish. Do we only focus on journalists who are best friends (besties!)? Or do we include ones that are merely acquaintances? If a journalists retweets another journalist, is their integrity forever compromised? Sorry. I'm being glib, but I've yet to see evidence that a journalist having a personal friendship with another journalist could compromise the quality of their reporting. A friendship with the subject they're writing about? Sure, then we're talking. But not with other journalists. Maybe I'm being naive. I did narrow down the articles published on highly reliable news sources quite a bit, to address the editorial discretion issue, but if you feel it should be narrowed further I'd love to hear it. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of Kencf0618's changes to the lede

@Kencf0618: Hi there! You've changed the lede because you believe 'and others' is unsupportable due to it not being cited in the lede. Using citations in the lede is something that's been discussed on the talk page before- the consensus was that doing so was unnecessary as long as it was sourced elsewhere in the article. As such, unless you disagree with this consensus and would like to start a new discussion, I'd request that you revert your reversion. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Fortunately, an editor has already made the appropriate changes, but I hope this has still aided you in understanding why I made the reversion you disagreed with to your change. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the SHOUTING. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Since this comes up quite a bit I've added a comment for future editors to try and redirect them to the talk pages first. — Strongjam (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries. kencf0618 (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is a grave disappointment and deeply harms my respect for Wikipedia

WP:FORUM & WP:SOAPBOX.Comeback with a change supported by reliable sources Avono (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've paid close attention to this controversy for some time now and being as I am a video game journalist (part time) I am intimately familiar with the impact it has had on my field. Articles on internet controveries are always inadvisable, all you are doing by keeping such articles on wikipedia is inviting that controversy to interfere with the project, but if you absolutely insist on keeping this article then the least you can do is strive to present an objective and comprehensive account of events. I had high hopes that the results of the arbitration case would lead to a better article, it is clear now however that there has been no attempt to improve things. Let's take the opening sentence as an example: "Gamergate is a multi-faceted controversy regarding sexism in video game culture" Right off the bat we an incoherent line of rubbish that speaks of a multi faceted controversy but only mentions one facet of it. Every single editor who has been involved in this circus ought to be ashamed of the damage they are doing to the trust people place in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavePenny (talk • contribs) 23:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC) What changes would you propose? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Please be sure that any suggested changes are based on what high quality reliable sources say about Gamergate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC) You mean the same high quality reliable sources that say Wikipedia is a misogynistic, woman-hating website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike20599 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC) References

Proposed revisions to lede

This proposal will never reach consensus. Do not propose things that you know will be rejected. Hipocrite (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The current lede is full of unsubstantiated nonsense and sophomoric bias, here is a proposed rewrite of it that presents the controversy briefly and fairly: Gamergate is a multi-faceted controversy regarding corruption in the video game trade press and sexism in video game culture. It garnered significant public attention beginning in august of 2014 following revelations of impropriety at several prominent video game publications when demands for accountability were met with accusations of misogyny and bigotry from the implicated outlets. Its supporters view Gamergate as a consumer revolt that seeks ethical reform in video game journalism while detractors posit that it is a movement centered around reactionary pushback against female game developers and feminist critique of video games. Supporters of Gamergate coordinate primarily under the Twitter hashtag #gamergate and in the various online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan in an anonymous and amorphous movement. Gamergate is widely viewed as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture between video game enthusiasts who want to see games judged purely on their own merit and a strata of commentators, critics and writers seeking to judge games in relation to wider social context. PavePenny (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC) The lede is a summary of the article. Your suggested lede does not do that. — Strongjam (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC) I would also add that the article is thoroughly sourced. If the New York Times is "unsubstantiated nonsense and sophomoric bias", then there's nothing more we can say here. Woodroar (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Well, the reliable sources I'm reading that have been used to support the apparently-painstaking writing of this article seem to agree that Gamergate's claims of "corruption" and "impropriety" are trivial if not wholly false, and widely agree that the public controversy has been wholly centered upon the misogynistic harassment of women in gaming and the resulting widespread perception that the gaming community (or at least a significant subculture within it) has a serious issue with sexism. Would you be so kind as to present the reliable sources which support your proposed edits? No Matter How Dark (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC) William Usher, for one, who is already cited as a source in the article. I also find it hilarious that the "reliable sources" you refer to are many of them either directly involved in or closely linked to the allegations of impropriety in this controversy, small wonder they'd downplay accusations of corruption. It is also deeply dishonest to assign culpability for "harassment" to the communities of reddit, 4chan or 8chan when there have been a sum total of zero discussions in either of those fora where any campaigns of abuse were ever coordinated in the name of #gamergate. PavePenny (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC) We summarize what the reliable sources say, which have been vetted and analyzed for months. Your proposed language does not summarize those sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC) (ec) CinemaBlend (where Usher posts) describes itself as an opinion site, and therefore isn't usable as a source for statements of fact; nor is it noteworthy enough for its opinion to be valuable on its own. The reliable sources we use for the bits of the lead you're talking about, though, are sources like the New York Times, Columbia Journalism Review, The Guardian, The Week, NPR's On the Media, Wired, Inside Higher Ed, and so forth; our particular cites for the origins of harassment are to Ars Technica, The Guardian, and the Washington Post. These are high-quality citations, and are not particularly involved beyond the general accusation that the media as a whole is corrupt; while we can report such accusations when they are notable, our policies require that we stick with the same general definition of a WP:RS that we use elsewhere -- that is, simply accusing the entire media of being in cahoots doesn't change the fact that the New York Times is a more reliable source than, say, an opinion piece on cinemablend. It'd be a violation of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE for us to give accusations made by an opinion piece on cinemablend weight equal to the New York Times. If the media as a whole genuinely is unreliable in a case like that, Wikipedia is unfortunately not the place to start fighting back, because in the end we're just an encyclopedia and are just going to summarize what the most traditionally authoritative sources on the subject have to say. --Aquillion (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Your "high quality citations" have produced an article that is riddled with inaccuracies, misrepresentation of fact and inappropriately opinionated language. Would you rather split hairs about what constitutes a "reliable source" or work towards presenting a factual review of this controversy? If the former you are of no help to this project. PavePenny (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC) So what you're arguing is that you're right and everyone else is wrong, because you say so. Well then, I'm convinced. No Matter How Dark (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC) You wouldn't need five years of experience as an associate editor of a literary journal to be able to tell that the line "Gamergate is a multi-faceted controversy regarding sexism in video game culture" is an example of fantastically poor language. Do you intend to amend it or do you feel it accurately reflects the standard of quality readers can expect from wikipedia as a whole? What makes me right is that I'm able to substantiate my claims and what makes this article very poorly written is that it is based on a foundation of empty conjecture if not outright lies. PavePenny (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC) There's actually a good point in this, perhaps poorly made. Should we remove 'multi-faceted' from the lede? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC) It's fairly new. I have no objections to it being taken out. — Strongjam (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC) I agreed that "multi-faceted" is clunky wording that adds nothing of value. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Policy requires that we stick with summarizing what the highest quality reliable sources say about the topic. This simply will not change. If anything in the article is "inaccurate" in the sense of failing to summarize what the 169 cited sources say, then please point that out. Or bring new high-quality reliable sources to the discussion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Policy also requires that you evaluate reliability on a case by case basis WP:RS. Hey check it out I can cite policy too. PavePenny (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Which of the article's currently-cited sources do you propose that we re-evaluate? No Matter How Dark (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Any and all sources that have financial or personal ties to either Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, Anita Sarkeesian or gamejournopros would be a good start. PavePenny (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Please list them, and we can debate their reliability and importance to this article. But we must be consistent. You can't support keeping an unreliable Cinemablend opinion piece and then try to remove journalistic reporting by widely accepted reliable sources that you perceive to be sympathetic to Quinn, Sarkeesian and Wu. That simply won't fly here. Make your case, but it better be persuasive, since changes are made only when consensus is reached. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Please note that this talk page has 27 archived sections, where these sources and these issues have been debated ad nauseum. Please make your case for evaluating the reliability of either an existing source or a new source. It is easy to cite policy in general terms but much harder to create consensus that major changes are needed in the lead section of an article which is receiving intense scrutiny from a large group of highly experienced editors. You are, of course, welcome to try. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Let's start with Polygon then, a publication not just with personal and financial ties to Zoe Quinn but also with staff members represented in the gamejournopros list. They have a vested financial interest in suppressing any allegations not just of their wrongdoing but that of their GJP peers and their links to Quinn herself mean they are not a reliable source of information on any supposed hardship she claims to have suffered. PavePenny (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC) What claims are they cited for that you believe they shouldn't be due to this allegation of improper behaviour? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC) For starters, this: "Christopher Grant, editor-in-chief of Polygon, said that Gamergate has remained an amorphous and leaderless movement consisting solely of the hashtag so that the harassment can be conducted without any culpability". Just to be clear, I have no issue per se with Polygon being used as a source but if you insist on citing them you should scrutinize them more closely as they are directly involved in this controversy so when Mr Grant issues this statement the question should natureally be, "what does he base it on?". If the answer is "a hunch" then he's got no business being quoted on an encyclopedia. PavePenny (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC) What source supports your claim that Polygon has "personal and financial ties to Zoe Quinn" or your claim that the harassment Zoe Quinn was subjected to is only "supposed"? I remind you that the Biographies of Living Persons policy requires that any allegation or claim relating to a living person must be supported by a reliable source, or it may be summarily removed and the responsible editor sanctioned. No Matter How Dark (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC) To start with, Ben Kuchera and Phil Kollar of Polygon both supported Quinn financially through Patreon. Quinn's "harassment" is a matter that is not only impossible to establish as fact as she herself has spokenly publicly encouraging people to send her abusive communication but the lede as it is currently written implies such harassment is to have taken place on twitter in conjunction with the #gamergate hashtag. Where is the evidence of this? It is not substantiated by any of the sources that are cited. PavePenny (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC) I want to second the statement that making repetitive claims about the sources (or the subjects of harassment), and trying to cast doubt on them (all without anything beyond words), is probably not going to get a lot of mileage here. As a glance through the talk page archives will show, it's all been said before. If you have any new information, new sources, or specific suggestions, please share them. If this is just going to be endless repetitions on bias in the media, well, even those of us who spent a long while actively avoiding this talk page have probably seen it all before. Many, many times. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS (TALK) 08:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC) I've already presented a very specific suggestion for how the article could be improved. Fundamentally the issue is this: conjecture is presented as fact and in an ongoing controversy that is heavily polarized the article only presents a single viewpoint and either omits entirely the opposing position or misrepresents it. The article should be based on fact and where facts are not available there should be no comment. PavePenny (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC) You have repeatedly been asked for reliable sources, and you still have not presented a single one. If you cannot supply reliable sources discussing your assertions and contentions, they do not belong on Wikipedia. Please see the verifiability policy, which is fundamental to the encyclopedia. No Matter How Dark (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC) If your suggestion was your suggested change to the lede, it's untenable. As was stated above, the lede is a summary of the article as a whole. The article is written based on the reliable sources we have available to us. If you have specific sources you feel should be added, or specific (and, I apologize for the emphasis, verifiable) reasons we should reconsider using a particular source, please feel free to bring them up here. But simply repeating claims about various sources, their editors or writers, or anyone else, is not constructive. I also suspect it may sometimes skirt eerily close to a BLP violation. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS (TALK) 09:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC) I only have so much time to spare, I wrote up a suggested revision for the lede because that is what stood out as the most egregious and immediate failure As for sources, yes I do have a few: Gamergate is a multi-faceted controversy regarding corruption in the video game trade press[1][2][3] and sexism in video game culture. It garnered significant public attention beginning in august of 2014 following revelations of impropriety at several prominent video game publications[4] when demands for accountability were met with accusations of misogyny and bigotry from the implicated outlets[5]. Its supporters view Gamergate as a consumer revolt that seeks ethical reform in video game journalism[6] while detractors posit that it is a movement centered around reactionary pushback against female game developers and feminist critique of video games[7]. Supporters of Gamergate coordinate primarily under the Twitter hashtag #gamergate and in the various online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan in an anonymous and amorphous movement. Gamergate is widely viewed as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture between video game enthusiasts who want to see games judged purely on their own merit and a strata of commentators, critics and writers seeking to judge games in relation to wider social context. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/01/the-gamer-is-dead-long-live-the-gamer/ [2] http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/02/the-verge-updates-affiliate-link-disclosure-following-gamergate-ftc-campaign/ [3] http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/02/gamergate-kotaku-is-interested-in-igf-rigging-allegations/ [4] Thezoepost and related fallout in which Quinn admits to having been in a relationship with Nathan Grayson, and multiple examples of undisclosed conflicts of interest are uncovered involving writers financially supporting Quinn [5] http://gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php And related articles [6] http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/10/09/gamergate-is-not-a-hate-group-its-a-consumer-movement/ [7] Self explanatory, already plenty of sources in the current article that support this view of the controversy [8] http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/11/12/the-authoritarian-left-was-on-course-to-win-the-culture-wars-then-along-came-gamergate/ Obviously if I had more time I'd like to suggest a complete rewrite but I hope this provides enough impetus to at least make an attempt to improve things. PavePenny (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC) I'm sorry, but blogjob? You think "oneangrygamer" on blogjob should be heavily sourced? [1] Erik Kain, by his own quote, "this is opinion writing and should be treated as such." His pieces play an important role in the article at present, I think, and I'm all for that. But you're going to have a hard time convincing me that his articles should supersede, for example, The Washington Post or The New York Times. [2] Blogjob. [3] Also Blogjob. [4] Primary sources. Blog. Unsuitable for a variety of other (largely BLP-related) reasons. [5] Clearly an opinion piece, already included in the article to demonstrate the opinion/views of the writer. Not sure how else you would want to use it, but there's not much more I think it would be useful for. [6] See #1. [7] Not self-explanatory at all, and not specific enough for me to address. [8] I won't go over why Breitbart is largely considered unsuitable. There's plenty of reasons above in this very section, or scattered throughout the archives. Also, if I may make a suggestion to you, I think you will find considerably more traction for your suggested changes if you focus smaller, rather than a rewrite (and refocus) of the entire lede, or the entire article, -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS (TALK) 09:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC) You stress yourself the importance of verifiability. In this case yes, blogjob provides accurate information regarding the ethical complaints of #gamergate supporters. Instead of twisting policy to support your confirmation bias it should be used strictly to establish facts were possible and where information cannot be verified it is inadmissable. If you disagree that any of the sources I cited do not accurately reflect the statements they are used to support above then you must show how, if you are unable to do so your obligation is instead to edit the article to include them. PavePenny (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC) 1) Do we have to rehash the Patreon thing? It was settled multiple times - the information is in the archives. 2) I can't believe 'Quinn's "harassment"' & "supposed hardship [Quinn] claims to have suffered" are being relitigated again. Again the harassment is well documented. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Painful Article

WP:SOAPBOX. No suitable change compatible with reliable sources proposed Avono (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is a mess. Instead of being unbiased and purely factual, it reads like someone who is against Gamer Gate wrote it. The entire first paragraph of the History has nothing to do with Gamer Gate. Can we please get some work done on this? Dreg102 19:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreg102 (talk • contribs) See several threads above on the same topic. Try searching the archives for similar complaints. Peter Isotalo 19:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Spiked naming pro-GamerGate one of the 'people of the year'

I entirely missed it till I went back to the archives - Spiked ranked pro-Gamergate as one of their top-25 'People of the Year'. Worthy of mention? http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/trail-blazers-risk-takers-and-rule-breakers-our-people-of-the-year/#.VKvo8ivF_3h MicBenSte (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this would even go if we chose to include it. Do you have a proposal for its inclusion? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

We used to have a section on right-wing commentators that spoke more positively of the GG movement, like Christina Hoff Sommers and Milo Y. (see [20]), which is exactly where this would have gone. I do not know why this was removed, as this is a necessary counterpoint in discussing the "culture war" facet of the controversy, and why the situation has gained larger interest. --MASEM (t) 04:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe including Milo Yiannopoulos's writing for Breitbart would specifically be an issue, given the reliability (or lack thereof) of it as a source. Sidenote: Are we sure GG is a right wing movement? I've read several claims that they're supposed to be left wing. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Including Milo's opinions is fine (particularly as we have other sources that state that he is a proponent of GG); we just can't use Milo's claims of actuality due to past issues with Brietbart poor fact-checking as a whole. And while I don't know for sure about any GGer's saying they are left-wing, the whole issue of ethics and trying to fight against the inclusion of social issues in games (and that's ignoring the issues of sexism, etc.) is very much contrary to left-wing thinking, and thus our sources as a whole classify the movement as right-wing in a political sense. --MASEM (t) 04:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem with including his opinions merely because he has them is that we have an essentially limitless supply of sourceable opinions. What makes Milo's opinions notable or representative? Is he an expert on video game culture? He's not exactly a gamer. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

He's the opposite of a gamer actually - and kinda a hypocrite. But he's dug quite a bit of info up, conducted a couple of interviews (Quinn and Sarkeesian however didn't want to talk with him at all) and tried to get to both sides of the story - although due to his own political agenda it's slightly biased. (And slightly is an understatement here) MicBenSte (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I would limit to people who have been identified in RSes as those that ... align? with GG (to the point of the right-wing nature of the issues). Milo and Christina both apply per at least that Salon article I've linked. In the case of this Spiked - which is a recognized publication (and not some random weblog) - that would also be appropriate. I agree a random proGG blog is not appropriate here which numerous have been proposed in the past; also keep in mind we're talking about when discussing the political identity/culture war aspect, which I've only seen from a few non-blog RSes (with most blog sources being on the ethics aspects). --MASEM (t) 05:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

To add, I think we can add Milo and Christina's opinions on the matter via other RS directly. The Salon link above, for example. CNN has a quote from Milo, while [21] from WAPost talks on Christina's position, so it looks like we can include their opinions without citing the primary source, thus filtering what other views are considered appropriate per other RSes. Keep in mind that we also have articles that are critical of Milo and Christina's supportive nature of GG that claim to be using the group to their own ends (eg [22], [23], [24]) --MASEM (t) 06:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Masem, while I think it's appropriate to include a variety of perspectives on this controversy, I'm skeptical about Milo and Christina (it seems odd to use their first names for identification, as the pro-GG folks do) because it's unclear what role they have in the actual issues of GamerGate. They are seen as spokespeople but that's because they have a large microphone, not because they have any knowledge of gaming journalism, game development or gaming culture. I think it's okay to use Sommers for her peculiar views on feminism, but, unlike most journalists covering GamerGate, Milo is actually a participant in the movement rather than a spectator, assessing and analyzing it. While there have been journalists sympathetic to those opposed to GamerGate, aside from Arthur Chu and Ian Miles Cheong, I can't think of any writers who are, essentially, have become a part of the debate . Chu is used as a reference once in this article but his more opinionated pieces aren't used as sources and Cheong is not used at all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The thing though is that these people have been named by other RSes as part of those writing to support what GG's "ethics" side is doing; we're not randomly pulling these names out of thousands of pro-GG blogs. And the point is not to express much about their opinion, but just to identify them as the few media names that have clearly taken a side in the debate and their reasoning towards the culture war aspect. We're not making guesses by using who has been identified by here. (And I only ID them by first name as I cannot remember Milo's last name spelling off the top of my head, no other reason). --MASEM (t) 20:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Masem, this is kind of a conundrum because GamerGate is consistent that they have no leaders. Yet they do acknowledge "ecelebs" who are seen as speaking on behalf of their cause. I think it would be fine to identify individuals as being important voices without reproducing their arguments here. That is simply an acknowledgment of the role they've played. I know Gawker has written about the importance of both individuals but I doubt that is considered a RS. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It makes no sense to mention these "ecelebs" (for lack of a better term) and not mention why they've taken the cause when RS do explain this relative to the nature of this being a culture ware (even if they are considering their involvement self-serving as some of the sources I state above). I've pointed out we can include these reasons from non-SPS RS that speak about their motivations (links above). I'm not saying we need a full paragraph about Milo Y.'s involvement, but a sentence. Same with Christina Hoff Sommers. These are significant names attached to GG as from reliable sources and to not include them is failing to be objective. We just have to recognize they are a minor viewpoint and don't need more than a sentence or two. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to see particularly criteria for THIS article set for which kinds of opinions to generally include, and where. A lot of the contentious stuff come from trying to include things from opinion pieces - sometimes because of the opinions cross into original research and sometimes because restating an opinion crosses so easily into synth. For this Wiki article, I think if there were a clearer way to mark opinions (e.g. put them in one section) that would help. I think notable opinions like Milo and Christina are important to include, but I have difficulty with the inclusion of the opinions of Givens - this is not to reopen those issues, but to illustrate that it's difficult to decide which opinions among so many to include. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth, I've collected several thousand graphic images arising out of GamerGate and there is a frequently reprinted "ideology map" (for lack of a better term) with a four quadrant spectrum: left authoritarian, left libertarian, right authoritarian, right libertarian. I believe that the survey was taken at KIA of people who visited that subreddit and chose to participate. The bulk of respondents placed themselves somewhere in the left libertarian square (I'd say 75%) with right libertarian square coming in second. Of course, this was not a random sample and it's not clear how these four terms were defined for the survey takers. But the graph is frequently brought out when GamerGate is being identified as a right wing movement to argue that many pros actually identify themselves as left-leaning. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I would point out that this is a disconnect between what the GG movement believes themselves as, and what other sources believe what GG are based on the motives (ignoring the harassment aspect). But it also depends where the center lies (which is the whole issue when you talk on things like Tea Party politics which bore out of a belief that the GOP was going far too center for their tastes). It would be nice to include that ideology map if we can get from an RS (I see one at dailykos, but yeeeah) --MASEM (t) 20:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Masem, one incongruity in GamerGate is how many of the original participants (I think the numbers have dwindled considerably) said they were actually feminists. They specified this was pro-first wave feminism (about equality), not so-called third wave feminism which they saw as interested not in equality but in promoting women, at the expense of men and masculine culture. How they reconciled this with the element of GG that harassed certain women is unclear. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

That was the whole #notyourshield part that was an attempt to point out that the people in GG were not just white males, but females and minorities too. But again, we really do lack any really good quantification of the population of GG which is why way to categorize them is near impossible - you can't ready survey without bias of an anonymous population. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

the whole notyourshield being actual diverse voices for GG has been shown to be a sham. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of the incongruity between their beliefs and their claims. I was mostly using the question as a rhetorical device to indicate how there are even a sizable amount within the population who would object to these people being said to represent or speak for them. We can't really use these people because not only do they not have expertise on the subject, they can't be spokespeople by any degree if they are to be characterised (quite rightly) as right-wing given the claims of a sizable majority of the movement. All that said, I do appreciate you taking the time to educate people. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Gotcha; the way I would approach that is not to identify them as spokespersons, but simply people that have aligned themselves with proGG. They are notable persons, in part noted for their alignment to GG, but I don't think that neither they think they speak for GG, or that GG thinks they speak for them (moreso, it is the case from the GG angle that these are the few voices that the press recognizes and thus are their best mouthpieces, if that makes sense on the difference). I think we can say these people sympathize with the GG cause, briefly explain rationale for why they do, and then perhaps include how some other see their sympathy as only a means to push their own agenda. But certainly not explain they are the voice/leader of GG, as that's just not there in sources or in what GG's state. --MASEM (t) 02:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to specify exactly what role these ecelebs play in GamerGate. They clearly have "fans" within the pro-GamerGate. But aside from the folks with big YouTube followings, many of the most high profile people have no connection to gaming or gaming journalism. But they are cultural critics, for what it's worth. But you can throw a rock in any direction these days and find a cultural critic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

(A note regarding spiked, based on one RS/N discussion, is that for facts we should be careful but they would be appropriate to cite their opinion (with attribution) for something like this.) --MASEM (t) 04:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Somewhere in the first paragraph as sidenote? I'm not entirely sure. Could be also somewhere more down the page... Not exactly sure.

BTW, re-reading the ledger etc - and "These attacks, initially performed under the Twitter hashtag #gamergate, were later variously coordinated in the online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan in an anonymous and amorphous movement. The harassment included doxing, threats of rape, and death threats, including a threat of a mass shooting at a university speaking event." are not sourced at all and are OR. While RSes attributed a lot of the stuff to GamerGate, as far as I can recall except for Gawker-related sites, no MSM has ever said the doxxing etc were coordinated. Especially not that threath of a mass shooting, (Redacted)

Re: Masem - it got voted 'blogs' don't have a place. I talked with Liz about it (I'll dig up the diffs later for that one), but didn't hear anything back from her yet besides that she agreed a few of the removed pieces should have a place. As of current, I'm not sure how to handle this. MicBenSte (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources in the Sarkeesian BLP and discussed on its talk page make it clear that there were two discrete threats regarding the university speaking engagement, the second of which specifically referenced Gamergate. Accusing Sarkeesian of making this up is a BLP violation. Please desist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Cullen, your memory is faulty. I read the BLP, and I saw what you mentioned I think (link 52) - however, that never claims it was GamerGate related but turned out to be an militant anti-feminist. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58528113-78/sarkeesian-threats-threat-usu.html.csp As a matter of fact what is written there is complete OR, I can't find it back in the article AT ALL. MicBenSte (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure that the Salt Lake Tribute source dosen't say "a second threat arrived Tuesday. That one, USU spokesman Tim Vitale confirmed, claimed affiliation with the controversial and sometimes violent online video gamers' movement known as GamerGate?" Just checking. Hipocrite (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless I'm a really bad reader at late time, I can't find such a thing in your mentioned article. Also, the links are way off with where they are placed then in Sarkeesian's BLP - they should be give an instant link where the reader can find the info, they shouldn't have to backtrack to 4 links earlier or later.... Also, if it's in there, two sources are counteracting each other. MicBenSte (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit: I see what you mean. However, it is only in the title, yet the body of the article counteracts it. So yeah. Shitty article there IMHO. What are we going to use - the header, or the body? MicBenSte (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Check again. The SLTrib source says "USU officials and Sarkeesian on Wednesday revealed new details about the threats. After the mass shooting threat was sent to the school late Monday, a second threat arrived Tuesday. That one, USU spokesman Tim Vitale confirmed, claimed affiliation with the controversial and sometimes violent online video gamers' movement known as GamerGate" just as Hipocrite stated. Woodroar (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

In my defense, it's late where I live. But you're right... MicBenSte (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be a random opinion piece from an anti-feminist website (or, at least, one aggressively critical of modern feminism, since the terms can be controversial; they particularly seem to come from the perspective that they believe it opposes free speech.) While we can mention opinions when they're relevant, it's important not to turn the article into just a dumping ground for any opinion piece some editor here agrees with; it's better to stick to opinion pieces from well-known high-profile otherwise reliable sources, which I don't feel this particular site merits. I mean, is there a reason you want to include their opinion in particular in the article? They're neither directly related to the controversy nor (as far as I know) particularly noteworthy in any of the fields it covers; and this particular opinion piece isn't even about the article's subject directly, just mentioning it in passing as part of a longer list. --Aquillion (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hence why I asked - I wasn't sure whether it had a place. *Shudder* MicBenSte (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

While I agree that this list article isnt of any particular use here, other articles have been written on spiked such as this one arguing gamergate is part of a culture war. It's nothing particularly amazing, but then again neither are most of the sources we use. Bosstopher (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I just checked out the link and I'm surprised that Spiked is seen as a reliable source. It looks like a pretty flaky website. Do they have a print version? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Remember, 'reliable source' is contextual. I think we generally wouldn't rely on them to source statements of fact (they're not, as far as I can see, a 'well-established news outlet' or anything like that, and they seem to focus heavily on opinion anyway); and I'd probably say that they're a 'questionable source' as described in WP:RS, but we could (in theory) still cite them to describe their opinion. The question at that point is whether their opinion is particularly relevant to the topic at hand; I'd generally argue that it isn't, but that's a matter of whether it would be giving their opinion WP:UNDUE weight rather than whether they're a reliable source. --Aquillion (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Potential sources

While looking around i found some self written GG report, now i know it cant be used because it doesn't paint gamergate in a negative light but i think we can use the sources cited at the end for a summery of what GG thinks is wrong with the journalism industry

(Redacted) per WP:BLP

Cited list at the end (1-50) Retartist 07:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Handrahan, M. (2013, March 5). Dead Space 4 cancelled as series sales decline - report. Retrieved November 3, 2014, from http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-03-05-dead-space-4-cancelled-as-series-sales-decline-report#comment-62914 2. The elements of journalism - American Press Institute. (2014). Retrieved November 8, 2014, from http://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/what-is-journalism/elements-journalism/ 3. Society of Professional Journalists: Improving and protecting journalism since 1909. (2014, September 6). Retrieved November 8, 2014, from http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp 4. The Bottom Line. (2014, April 24). 2014 Essential Facts About The Computer And Video Game Industry, 13-13. Retrieved December 9, 2014, from https://web.archive.org/web/20141126034557/http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2014.pdf 5. France-Presse, A. (2013, December 9). New consoles, online gaming to drive double digit industry growth till 2017: Report. Retrieved October 25, 2014, from http://gadgets.ndtv.com/games/news/new-consoles-online-gaming-to-drive-double-digit-industry-growth-till-2017-report-456342 6. Baker, L. (2011, June 6). Factbox: A look at the $65 billion video games industry. Retrieved October 25, 2014, from http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/06/06/us-videogames-factbox-idUKTRE75552I20110606 7. Baker, L., & Nayak, M. (2012, June 12). Factbox: A look at the $78 billion video games industry. Retrieved October 26, 2014, from http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/01/us-videogameshow-e3-show-factbox-idUSBRE8501IN20120601 8. Siewek, S. (2010, August 10). Video Games in the 21st Century the 2010 Report, 3-3. Retrieved December 9, 2014, from http://www.ei.com/downloadables/videogames.pdf 9. The Entertainment Software Association. (2014). Retrieved November 2, 2014, from http://www.theesa.com/facts/econdata.asp https://archive.today/yojR1 10. Video Games in the 21st Century: The 2010 Report. (2010, August 10). Retrieved October 30, 2014, from http://www.theesa.com/facts/state_reports_2010/California.pdf :http://web.archive.org/web/20141129201644/http://www.theesa.com/facts/state_reports_2010/California.pdf 11. Toto, S. (2013, April 8). Japan’s Video Game Market Grows to $4.6 Billion in 2012 (But Social Games Not Too Far Off). Retrieved October 26, 2014, from http://www.gamesinasia.com/japan-video-game-market-over-4-billion-dollars-2012/ 12. Do, A. (2013, October 28). South Korea's gaming market is worth $9.16 billion! Retrieved October 30, 2014, from https://www.techinasia.com/south-koreas-gaming-market-worth-916-billion/ https://archive.today/YHm66 13. Ong, J. (2013, January 8). China's Video Game Industry Brought in $9.7b in 2012. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from http://thenextweb.com/asia/2013/01/08/chinas-video-game-industry-brought-in-9-7-billion-in-2012-report/ 14. Bond, P. (2008, June 18). Video game sales on winning streak, study projects. Retrieved October 25, 2014, from http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/06/18/us-videogames-idUSN1840038320080618?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0 15. Lehrman, R. (2012, March 18). Video game nation: Why so many play. Retrieved October 28, 2014, from http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/0318/Video-game-nation-Why-so-many-play 16. Mendelson, S. (2014, August 3). Box Office: 'Guardians Of The Galaxy' Zooms To $94M Weekend. Retrieved October 28, 2014, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2014/08/03/box-office-guardians-of-the-galaxy-zooms-to-94m-weekend/ 17. Activision Clarifies ‘Destiny’ Sales Numbers, Promises Game Will Evolve On PlayStation And Xbox. (2014, September 17). Retrieved October 27, 2014, from http://www.inquisitr.com/1480863/activision-clarifies-destiny-sales-numbers-promises-game-will-evolve-on-playstation-and-xbox/ 18. Resident Evil. (2014, November 2). Retrieved November 2, 2014, from http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=residentevil.htm 19. France-Presse, A. (2014, October 15). Intel Posts Record $14.6 Billion Revenue; 12 Percent Jump in Q3 Profit. Retrieved October 28, 2014, from http://gadgets.ndtv.com/laptops/news/intel-posts-record-146-billion-revenue-12-percent-jump-in-q3-profit-607072 20. Kiss, J. (2014, March 25). Oculus: Facebook buys virtual reality gaming firm for $2bn. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/25/facebook-buys-virtual-reality-gaming-firm-oculus 21. Soper, T. (2014, September 25). Amazon completes acquisition of Twitch - GeekWire. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from http://www.geekwire.com/2014/amazon-completes-acquisition-twitch/ 22. IGN - Google. (n.d.). Retrieved October 26, 2014, from https://plus.google.com/+IGN 23. IGN.com. (n.d.). Retrieved November 3, 2014, from https://www.facebook.com/ign 24. News Corp. Acquires IGN for $650 Million. (2005, September 10). Retrieved October 27, 2014, from http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-09-10/news-corp-dot-acquires-ign-for-650-million 25. Web traffic insights for Giantbomb.com. (n.d.). Retrieved October 26, 2014, from http://web.archive.org/web/20140811195039/http://www.similarweb.com/website/giantbomb.com 26. McCracken, H. (2011, August 16). I just discovered Giant Bomb on TIME's list of Best Websites. Explore it and more must-see sites on TIME.com. Retrieved November 2, 2014, from http://web.archive.org/web/20110817105013/http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2087815_2087939_2087927,00.html 27. McCracken, H. (2011, August 16). I just discovered The Escapist on TIME's list of Best Websites. Explore it and more must-see sites on TIME.com. :Retrieved November 3, 2014, from http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2087815_2087939_2087916,00.html 28. New Survey: Online Video, TV, and Magazines Influence Video Game Purchases.. (n.d.) >The Free Library.(2014). Retrieved Nov 4 2014, from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/New+Survey%3a+Online+Video%2c+TV%2c+and+Magazines+Influence+Video+Game...-a0189670696 29. Snider, M. (2010, July 8). Survey says video game review scores affect consumer behaviors. Retrieved October 28, 2014, from http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gamehunters/post/2010/07/survey-says-video-game-review-scores-important/1?csp=34#.VEh0KvnF-So 30. How We Create the Metascore Magic. (n.d.). Retrieved October 29, 2014, from http://www.metacritic.com/about-metascores 31. Matulef, J. (2013, March 27). Metacritic score-weighing process revealed - report. Retrieved October 31, 2014, from http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-27-metacritic-score-weighing-process-revealed-report 32. Gilbert, B. (2012, March 15). Obsidian missed Fallout: New Vegas Metacritic bonus by one point. Retrieved October 27, 2014, from http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/15/obsidian-missed-fallout-new-vegas-metacritic-bonus-by-one-point/ 33. Obsidian layoffs: Could blame lie with Metacritic? (2012, March 15). Retrieved November 1, 2014, from 33. http://www.shopto.net/news/29567/Obsidian-layoffs-Could-blame-lie-with-Metacritic 34. Teasdale, D. (2013, March 21). Is the games industry really dying? Twisted Pixel’s lead designer dives deep into layoff data. Retrieved November 2, :2014, from https://archive.today/B7o90 35. Matulef, J. (2012, July 26). Irrational Games job ad lists 85 Metacritic score as a requirement. Retrieved November 2, 2014, from http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-07-26-irrational-games-job-ad-lists-metacritic-score-as-a-requirement 36. Schrier, J. (2013, April 11). Metacritic Matters: How Review Scores Hurt Video Games. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from http://kotaku.com/metacritic-matters-how-review-scores-hurt-video-games-472462218 37. Ridgeley, S. (2012, March 2). Larian Studios Interview Pt. 1: Games Journalism is Broken. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Games/Interviews/larian_studios_pt1/ 38. Peckham, M. (2011, March 16). Homefront Reviews Torpedo THQ Stock Price, Metacritic Broken. Retrieved October 29, 2014, from http://news.yahoo.com/homefront-reviews-torpedo-thq-stock-price-metacritic-broken-20110316-084500-427.html 39. Alexander, L. (n.d.). Homefront Reviews Torpedo THQ Stock Price, Metacritic Broken. Retrieved November 3, 2014, from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/173660/kaos_descends_how_homefronts_.php?print=1 40. Carter, G. (2012, August 12). Funcom Blames MetaCritic For Share Price Drop. Retrieved November 3, 2014, from http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/119015-Funcom-Blames-MetaCritic-For-Share-Price-Drop 41. IGDA Toronto Chapter. (2014, September 18). IGDA Toronto Rant and Rave Night 2014 [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGxtAvzQt2s&t=43m10s 42. Kerzner, L. (n.d.). My response to the recent Ralph Retort challenge to my ethics. Retrieved November 8, 2014, from http://redlianak.tumblr.com/post/99602108875/my-response-to-the-recent-ralph-retort-challenge-to-my 43. Chalk, A. (2011, March 15). Retrieved November 2, 2014, from http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/108482-BioWare-Employee-Busted-in-Dragon-Age-2-Review-Scandal-UPDATED 44. Crossley, R. (2011, November 18). Telltale devs caught abusing Metacritic user score. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from http://www.develop-online.net/news/telltale-devs-caught-abusing-metacritic-user-score/0110582 45. Geis, A. (2014, October 14). Bayonetta 2 review: Heaven and hell. Retrieved October 29, 2014, from http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/13/6957677/bayonetta-2-review-wii-u 46. Grant, C. (2014, October 17). On GamerGate: A letter from the editor. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/17/6996601/on-gamergate-a-letter-from-the-editor 47. Nelva, G. (2014, October 14). Bayonetta 2′s “Over-Sexualization” Complaint: A Perfect Example of What’s Wrong with Modern Reviews | DualShockers. Retrieved November 5, 2014, from http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/10/14/bayonetta-2s-over-sexualization-complaint-a-perfect-example-of-whats-wrong-with-modern-reviews/ 48. Cavalli, E. (2012, March 15). Jeff Gerstmann Explains His Departure From Gamespot. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116360-Jeff-Gerstmann-Explains-His-Departure-From-Gamespot 49. Gornoski, D. (2005, December 21). Game media leaders discuss allegations of content for sale and other controversies. Retrieved November 3, 2014, from https://web.archive.org/web/20070516012240/http://nintendonow.e-mpire.com/index.php?categoryid=5&m_articles_articleid=3317 50. The Game Beat Pressing the button-pressing press' buttons. (2005, December 16). Retrieved November 3, 2014, from http://kyleorland.com/thegamebeat/?m=20051216

I'd say we can't use the "dossier" itself more because it's a self-published internet post written with no clear editorial oversight by a group of anonymous people on the internet, more than because "it doesn't paint Gamergate in a negative light." The list of articles is worth looking through, but with a cursory glance, I don't see how most of them relate directly to the Gamergate controversy. Indeed, most of them predate the controversy, some by a rather significant amount. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ^(TALK) 07:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, after looking at this closer, can you give an idea of how you think any of these might be useful to the article? The only ones I see that relate to the Gamergate controversy in any meaningful way are 42 and 46. Of those, 42 is a blog post on tumblr, and 46 is already included in the article (by way of its use in an On The Media report). -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ^(TALK) 08:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I reckon that the sources could be used to describe GG's grievances against the press, like a summery of what we they think is wrong with the press, also i think the dossier is good background reading (for editors) --Retartist 08:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

How would you want to use them "to describe GG's grievances against the press," though? The article is already arguably oversourced, I'm not sure it will be useful to try to add sources or information that doesn't relate to the controversy in any apparent, meaningful way. Do you have any specific suggestions? -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ^(TALK) 08:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I dont have a specific wording change yet but i'm thinking that we could add some GG pov into "Debate over ethics in journalism" as the section is largely criticism by journalists on GG "Gamergate's demands have often been hard to quantify, but numerous journalists who have attempted to do so" I'm thinking that we can add more rebuttals or even the demands of GG because after reading that section i'm not seeing a debate (or what gg is demanding). --RetΔrtist (разговор) 09:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

only if you have reliably published sources that put the material in the context of the gamergate situation, otherwise doing so based on your own personal interpretations is not allowed- we dont do research, we report what the experts have discovered. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you pulling together all of these references, Retartist because I'm unfamiliar with some of them that talk about the bigger picture of videogame culture, business and journalism. But, as has been said, this article is already heavily sourced and the articles would have to be weighed as to their reliability and whether they have anything to add to the article. Of course, it is difficult to talk about the goals, grievances and achievements of GamerGate because it isn't an organization with articulated goals, grievances and achievements. It's a hashtag that both pros, antis and neutrals use on Twitter, a few forums and some specific threads on online forums. Who speaks for GamerGate? Everyone and no one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately the list i have in the table is only 1-50 of 121 sources because i didn't have time to put a ":" in front of all of them, ill get to that now soon because the school has blocked it for "games" now --RetΔrtist (разговор) 21:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

That's because virtually all pro-GG debaters are vocal forum aficionados and other types of non-notable people. We will give them as much room to elaborate here as we do with other opinionated non-notable amateurs.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I have redacted a link to an anonymously-written, patently-unreliable source which contains a wide array of negative statements and allegations about living people, under the topic ban exemption for the removal of clear and unambiguous BLP violations. This link is clearly unacceptable anywhere in the encyclopedia and has previously been removed from talkspace for the same reason. Reinserting it is likely to lead to sanctions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to have to revert you because the link itself is not under discussion but the cited list of sources at the end of the document --RetΔrtist (разговор) 21:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You've just violated BLP after being warned. I have redacted the link again, and if you take this to Arbitration Enforcement, you're likely to be the one who ends up blocked. It doesn't matter whether or not you think the link is "under discussion," the link is an anonymous, unreliable personal blog which makes a number of allegations about living people — as such, it is a flagrant violation of policy to link it on the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

That is NOT a proper use of the exception, since the link was not in the piece itself, you ARE in violation of your topic ban. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@AnsFenrisulfr: take that up with ARBCOM if you truly feel that way. NBSB's edit seems within BANEX to me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

BLP applies to all areas of the encyclopedia, including talk pages. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamestar.de addition

"eines betrogenen Ex Freundes" = "a cheated exboyfriend" WP:BLP (and bad prose)? (NM. Has since been addressed since I first looked.) I would like to review the article, but it's behind a paywall. Ideas how to review it? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sent Avono (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I object to the sentence that was added: "Gamergate supporters saw theses op-eds as a conspiracy to stifle their press criticism with a smear campaign which Michael Graf of Gamestar described as understandable but thought them to be an overreaction towards gamers who had overreacted to the overreaction of an ex-boyfriend." There is an elide part of the translation: "Dieser Eindruck ist nachvollziehbar, an eine Kampagne glauben wir aber nicht, sondern einfach an eine komplette Überreaktion. Eine Überreaktion auf die Überreaktion vieler Spieler auf die Überreaktion eines betrogenen Ex-Freundes." = "This impression is understandable to [the GamerGate] campaign, but we do not believe it, instead [we think] it is simply a complete overreaction - an overreaction to the overreaction of many gamers to the overreaction of a cheated-on ex-boyfriend." The key phrase that is missing is "but we do not believe it". I think the most that could be added without including "but we do not believe it" is "Gamestar thinks that GameGate is an overreaction". (And I don't think that's so interesting.) The sentence as added mangles the original opinion. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)