Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Edit request on 06:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

{{edit requested}}

Change the photo of Zoe Quinn in the article from File:Zoe Quinn - GDC 2014.jpg to File:Zoe Quinn Car 2014.jpg, as it is preferred by the subject and slightly more flattering than the candid photo where she's holding a bottle of beer.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

As a sidebar, while these photographs have been uploaded with the express permission of the subject, is there some way we can request that she provide a simple portrait photograph of herself rather than these expressive and artistic selfies?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

She posted the pictures + permissions on Twitter, so it might be possible to ask her via Twitter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I had to make my Twitter private because the Gamergate hordes were angry at the shit I was writing here and as of 12 hours ago they still are.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"As a sidebar", I'm entertained by the blatant admission of partisan bias from both of you here. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If Gaters are going to harass people for trying to uphold Wikipedia policy, then "Gamergate hordes" is putting it very mildly indeed. As another sidebar to any admins patrolling CAT:EP, I can't act on this because I'm involved. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The picture proposed looks extremely unprofessional for an Encyclopedia, the picture right now is of good quality and at actual gaming event. It doesn't seem to be a "candid" picture as you say, she's smiling. Should we replace any picture on Wikipedia because the subject thinks it makes them look better? That looks like another attempt at controlling the narrative, what's wrong with drinking beer? She's an adult. Loganmac (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What is your problem? The photo we have had on Wikipedia for the past several weeks/months/whatever is a terrible photo. It's not the best quality. It just barely depicts the subject. Wikipedia articles regularly replace these kinds of photos for ones that better depict the subject and are more flattering. The ones Quinn supplied for Wikipedia aren't optimal but they're better than what we have now. Switching it for a different photo is not "controlling the narrative".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Mercedes Benz pulls advertising from Gawker

I really hope a media outlet mentions this, but this is as huge as the Intel thing.

It has just been confirmed a few minutes ago, obviously still no news, I'll just wait Loganmac (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I have also seen this, but i do not think its directly correlated to Gamergate as such. This was an, excuse my language, an idiotic statement from a senior official at Gawker, where he litteraly tweets that we wants to bully some nerds. This happened on bully awareness day(month?). I do not think it will be many people supporting this, gg or anti-gg as such.--Torga (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Eh, nah, it is definitely related to GamerGate. They were invoking it towards GamerGate and GamerGate supporters drew attention to this and bombarded advertisers with screen-caps of those tweets and those by other staff at Gawker Media.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not directly related. Mercedes is pulling out because of the tweets promoting bullying. I'm fairly certain that even if those tweets didn't mention GamerGate at all, Mercedes still would have pulled out, provided it was brought to their attention. 24.192.67.45 (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If it gets attributed then it can be discussed in the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

No mainstream note of yet, just Adland.tv: http://adland.tv/adnews/mercedes-pulls-advertising-gawker-network/1636503170 2601:B:3100:5E9:5134:24FA:9465:A107 (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yiannopoulus seems to have confirmation. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Also this but I'm not sure if it's admissible. Hope I did that right. AnyyVen (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably not usable. And Milo is still questionable.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Something tells me Erik Kain will be among the few covering this soon, it's hilarious that the guy saying bring back bullying kept on mocking people yet when Mercedes pulled of he gave a half-apology Loganmac (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

What's not hilarious is that you feel the need to discuss living persons as if this is a forum. Woodroar (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No reliable sources have turned up to verify this, and Max Read, the current editor-in-chief of Gawker, seems to be pouring cold water on the issue, as he belives that Mercedes may not have been an active advertiser in the first place. Eventually we'll get independent confirmation one way or the other. - Bilby (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

A Jalopnik writer has stated on Twitter that Mercedes hasn't advertised on Gawker in four years. Either way, as Bilby noted, we can wait for reliable sources to comment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone who handles some of their digital campaign states that Mercedes has ordered Gawker to be blacklisted. I wish it weren't the weekend. Willhesucceed (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Even if that's the case, it wouldn't be "pulling advertising" if such ads haven't existed in years. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The EIC didn't say they weren't advertising, he said he "thinks" they weren't. Their sponsors list stated otherwise. They have now taken down their sponsors list.

This is from GamerHeadlines probably not RS "This has caused Mercedes Benz to pull out all advertising from the network, and many GG celebs such including the recently declared cancer free John Bain (aka Totalbiscuit) to set up fundraisers for anti-bullying organisations." John Bain donated more than $3000 to PARCER [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganmac (talk • contribs) 14:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

GamerHeadlines is not a reliable source. This may be worth mentioning when there is independent confirmation, which I'm sure will come soon one way or the other./ It is all moot, of course, given that the article is protected, so there's no rush. - Bilby (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Still no news on the Mercedes stuff, but Gawker's certainly sweating. Jim Romenesko, journalist: link. Willhesucceed (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like they were advertising, and they're advertising again. [2]. I'd like to take these current claims of lost advertisers carefully, as the GG arguments may not have a long-term impact if the advertisers feel that they have been mislead or only received part of the story. - Bilby (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Harassment of Gamergate supporters

Vice

Inquistr

Kotaku

Forbes

HuffPost Live interviews with Gamergate supporters and with members of the video games press

TotalXbox

Computer Base

Reason, which Business Insider says is "sober" reading.

Techcrunch

Slate

Translated: women who support Gamergate are "stupid" and "self-hating misogynists".

Willhesucceed (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No longer really matters, given the continuing shift away from the "but ethics" sham. Defending oneself and others from harassment is not in itself a harassing act. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep swimming against the tide there, you'll only end up tired. The overwhelming majority of the rape, murder, and such type of threats have come from the advocates of gamergate. That some of those types got a smidgen of blowback is at best a footnote. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"Just last night I deleted a youtube comment from a user who posted my home address and said he’d kill my wife and leave me to mourn" seems hardly like "defense" and quite a lot like "harassment." This is kind of what I was getting at - this Wikipedia article makes the whole debacle seem very cut and dry: one side is perpetuating a campaign of misogynistic hatred and the other is comprised of women and their supporters being harassed. I can understand if no reliable secondary sources are available, and that just because there are, for instance, two sides in a controversy doesn't mean they get equal weighting, but this feels like purposeful evasion. I could understand this reasoning if participating in a debate on the topic, but not objectively documenting it. AnyyVen (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

An issue to consider is that the harassment of Quinn and others can be easily seen on Twitter, and though various means, readily shown to be coming from a small number of ppl that claim their actions under the name of GG. The harassment of proGG people, on the other hand, is far less visible, and tracking those that do it is near impossible to affirm that antiGG people are doing it. As such, while the proGG people are being harassed, we cannot say it is one side harassing the other, and that's why there's almost no sources that cover it. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Understood - that's why I mentioned reliable secondary sources, because unless Inquistr suddenly supercedes Al Jazeera in terms of credibility, there really aren't any that address that Gamergate supporters are receiving similar threats, let alone who they may or may not be coming from. AnyyVen (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I can understand doubting the reliability of HuffPost Live, Kotaku, Forbes, and Inquisitr, but Slate, Reason, and Business Insider? Really? The others are weak to middling sources, but Slate and Business Insider strengthen their case. Harassment is happening. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear - my intention wasn't to discredit the sources so much as it was a reflection on the general lack of credible sources, mostly based on previous discussion, debate and outcomes. AnyyVen (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think those two really point out any particular harassment towards supporters of the movement as much as they point out harassment towards the movement's detractors in detail.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"Consequently, harassment has also been directed in return at GamerGate supporters themselves, who at this point endure constant doxing and torment of their own members; hashtag searches makes finding harassment targets easy" is the direct statement, and some examples of statements/tweets/etc are given and inferred by the article to be negative or exemplary. It's not exactly a front-page article on the NYT but is one of the few examples I've seen of a media outlet even paying mention to it. [edit: this is from the Slate article] AnyyVen (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

What harassment has been shown to be coming from people under the name of GamerGate? Most of the stuff that is getting publicity has not been shown to come from either side.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Such a claim is so far out in left field from any of the sources that it strains all ability to assume that you are here for anything other than WP:TE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

We do not present allegations as fact without confirmation. All we have is that one threat apparently mentioned GamerGate, but the ones getting the most coverage said nothing about it. People being harassed who support GamerGate is getting coverage and does warrant mention. That this is suspected to be from opponents of GamerGate also warrants mention, though we should not treat them as fact either absent confirmation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the threats do not mention Gamergate as the impetus. There are enough sources that make the connections that we can include their claims on thsi article. I'm personally not currently convinced that we need to go "some Gamergate supporters are receiving harassment too" when they are minor aspects of the cited news articles above.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

My point is we don't treat it as fact anymore than we would treat these instances from alleged opponents as fact. That does not mean we exclude it or neglect to mention the allegation that it comes from opponents.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I updated the list. Willhesucceed (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

And my question was originally are these claims of harassment sent towards those in the "pro-Gamergate" camp worthy of mention overall, because it seems to be an afterthought in much of the writing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart / Yiannopoulos

Spectator, New Statesman, Week, Times, Metro, Spiked, Verge, RealClearPolitics and Reason, Vulture, Stuff, Inquisitr, Washington Post, Metaleater, Forbes, CNN, Recode, Chinatopix, Ars Technica, Forbes again, pocketgamer, tportal, Totalbiscuit and video games publications EICs Janelle Bonanno and Greg Tito

I think this makes a clear case for notability. Particularly, there seems to be a focus on how Breitbart / Yiannopoulous got involved early in the controversy and spread the tag, and on the leaked emails of the GameJournoPros list. Both of these topics should be in the article. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yiannopoulos and his role in GameJournoPros seems fair to mention but given how little impact that had on the resulting situation as well as still being an unfounded accusation (there's a big gap of logic from a mailing list of game journalists discussing their work, and purposeful collusion to censor the story as the claims have made) we can't give it a lot of weight. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"there's a big gap of logic from a mailing list of game journalists discussing their work, and purposeful collusion to censor the story" - which is covered by actual analysis of the actual discussion. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This is something Yiannopoulos invented in his coverage of the group. Every other person who examined the list did not identify any wrongdoing by anyone. Yiannopoulos is someone who professionally stirs figurative shit for a living and the website he writes for has consistently warped the facts in various cases to make stories.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. Erik Kain had some concerns, as did ChinaTopix. Orland himself admitted some of his behaviour was unprofessional. Willhesucceed (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hasn't it been established that the GamesJournoPros list doesn't mean jack squat in the long run and Yiannopoulos was acting just as he always does on Breitbart which is to say making shit up for publicity?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

As some of the more mainstream summary reports of late have mentioned the discovery of this list which set some in motion some other aspects, a sentence or two mention is fine, but we don't need to dwell on it. (This arguably is also true now of TFCY issue too, it's a minor point in the larger narrative). --MASEM (t) 16:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's noteworthy. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

What they say about Breitbart/Yiannopoulos: "Yiannopoulos of Breitbart London published an article containing emails ...(in which he) suggested collusion between these journalists ... (He later) also published the full exchange of emails, which provided a more nuanced look at the situation ... All told, (the full collection of e-mails) appears to be a largely civil conversation between professionals." and "he leaked a trove of basically anodyne emails between game journalists -ironically, Yiannopoulos had little but sneering contempt for gamers before he spied a chance to make some right-wing converts.)" and "Truly odd, fascinating headline there: “Feminist bullies tearing the video game industry apart.” The mainstream response to B/Y is pretty much "yawn, nothing there", "hmmm, some presentation out of context -not exactly what you would expect from a journalist purportedly expounding on journalistic ethics" to "someone saw an opportunity to strike gold and get a rabidly tech savy audience by only reversing his opinion of them" to "yowsa! can you believe he is blaming the victims of the death threats????? " I am not really sure how you wan to fit that into the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's like Kain wrote in Forbes in September: "Some are crying for more ethical journalism while embracing completely biased and one-sided coverage of the event so long as it conforms to their own biases". Mr. Y seems to fit this to a T.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

And then there is this It is also worth pointing out that Delingpole tells his readers to search for a number of - abysmal and hateful - pieces on GamerGate by a man he employs as a columnist at Breitbart, without disclosing their relationship. The irony is noted.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest at the top of "Role of journalists" we place:

Milo Yiannopoulos was the first to cover the controversy early news coverage of the controversy, in which he criticized the politicization of video game culture, and with leaking correspondence from GameJournoPros, an email list where members of the video game press discussed industry matters. Kyle Orland, the creator of the list, responded to the leak on Ars Technica, admitting that he had acted unprofessionally in some correspondences. Most members of the press saw the list as largely benign.

References

Willhesucceed (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

kind of missing the major points of all the reliable sources coverage of his "work" , aren't you? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You are really cherrypicking the content that sheds the positive light on Yiannopoulos's writing when TRPoD has pointed out that everyone else doesn't think anything he's revealed is worth much in the long run and also how he previously referred to gamers as "nerd rapists" and "dorky weirdos".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to improve it, suggest changes. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, like your whole proposed addition is just singing praises and casting the whole of the list in a bad light. Yiannopoulos may have inserted himself into the debate, but it does not seem like this proposed addition accurately depicts what has happened.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Your version is a bit POV there. It makes it sound like Orland copped to what Yiannopoulos was saying, when the truth is that he defended the list and said he felt it wasn't a big deal. Many commentators agreed on that front. We should note that Fudge weighed in as well, with Ryan Smith being more on the other side. We also have sources agreeing with the concerns about the list, so that should be mentioned as well.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Orland did admit he acted improperly on the mailing list in some instances. I don't know quite how to phrase it. If somebody has a better way to write the paragraph, or things they want to add, I encourage them to do so. I changed it a bit. Is it better now? Willhesucceed (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

[3] seems to confirm that Milo has completely moved out of the role of "journalist" into the position of participant/advocate and toss any charade out the window. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Since no one's commented on my suggested paragraph further, I'm going to assume it's acceptable. Willhesucceed (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's still not acceptable in any way. Silence does not mean consensus. Also I apologize for all the edit conflicts I just went through.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you please help me to improve it then. I believe this is my third request now. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it should be added at all in the first place because it makes statements that are not supported by the whole of every other source out there that criticizes Milo's actions in making a mountain out of a molehill.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

What would you put into the article about Breitbart/Yiannopoulos instead? Willhesucceed (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Something minimal that says he leaked the list, the Ars Technica guy's response, and plenty of sources that say that the list is benign.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I added another two sources. Willhesucceed (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree on this Willhesucceed, GJP not being on the article is just a clear example of controlling the narrative Loganmac (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not "controlling the narrative". No one other than Milo and the Gamergaters think that it's important.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I've loaded up on the disagreeing sources. Good enough? Willhesucceed (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Far too much detail about a point that is clearly a minor footnote in the larger narrative, looking back at what we know now. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Could someone else post an example of what they'd want? I keep making changes to it and everyone keeps saying, "Mm, nah" without actually helping me improve it. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not wanted or warranted at all. That's the issue. It's something that the supporters of Gamergate laud as something that shows that they're right about something when everyone who has investigated the list and their claims see that it's nothing. There's nothing in there other than one person saying "I probably shouldn't have said this but oh well".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You already said you'd include it if X, so show me what X is. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Arguably, a sentence like "Allegations of possible collusion in the media was drawn by Milo Yiannopoulos based an internal mailing list between several gaming journalists that had discussed how to handle the Quinn story including limiting forum discussions on the sensitive matter, but this was determined to be a manner of standard practice within the industry." --MASEM (t) 20:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

That's all that's needed Loganmac (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Running With Scissors, Postal devs just recently mentioned the GJP thing "they actively discuss how to coordinate their actions and which games to give coverage to" [4] Loganmac (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

New form:

Allegations of possible collusion in the media were drawn by Milo Yiannopoulos based on an internal mailing list between several gaming journalists, that had discussed how to handle the Quinn story including limiting forum discussions on the sensitive matter, but this was determined to be a manner of standard practice within the industry.

References

Okay, how's this? Willhesucceed (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This still doesn't address the fact that no one thought the list was inherently wrong and criticism of Milo's accusations.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This ought to be included sooner or later, Destructoid editor-in-chief just quit because of the shitstorm involving GameJournosPro and a writer getting fired and blacklisted. Don't know if I can link because it's not RS and it's borderline BLP but William Usher's blog, the oringal GJP leaker has an extensive article on this with screenshots and all Loganmac (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

NOW we can talk about Wikileaks

The Verge pointing out that WL is supporting the GG side due to the media/censorship concerns (though not proving/disproving anything). --MASEM (t) 19:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you suggest something like

"WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange argued the alledged corruption of gaming journalism exists in all journalism, and that they should not focus their corruption and censorship concerns only on journalism within gaming."

I forgot to sign Halfhat (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's more like we can reference the AMA's existence and then point to the statements by The Verge that they seem to be leaping upon the group as an external voice to push an agenda like Adam Baldwin and the AEI did before them. Much of that article is critical of Wikileaks' involvement in Gamergate so we should present the criticism.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the statement could be as simple as "Wikileak's founder Julian Assange has shown support for Gamergate in the efforts to highlight corruption and censorship in media." Verge's criticism is, unarguably , biased, but establishes WL has supported it. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

We're allowed to point out the criticism, Masem.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticism that is coming from one source is FRINGE, however. (You can't have it both ways here). --MASEM (t) 20:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

How is it WP:FRINGE? If we're using them to say that it exists we can just as easily say that they're critical of it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The Verge's criticisms are opinions, and given that they are the only one who has espoused said opinion, it is fringe. Julian Assange supporting GG however, is not an opinion. 24.192.67.45 (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

They're the only reliable source discussing Wikileaks' now explicit support of Gamergate in the first place. How is their criticism of something they themselves are the only people reporting on in the first place a fringe opinion? All or none.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning that WL has expressed support is a factual statement. Commenting on that support is an opinion, and even if it is the only opinion on the matter, is undue weight on that tiny tiny part of the larger narrative. --MASEM (t) 00:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

FFS, Wikileaks is a tiny tiny part of the larger narrative. There is no way that we can use this Verge article as a source to state that Wikileaks has gotten involved without including its criticism of Wikileaks getting involved because the criticism is the whole reason that article was even written.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I would have no objection to a paragraph dealing with censorship and the silencing of criticism. Assange's view may merit a sentence but the chief focus would, of course, be on the attempts to silence and limit the freedom of expression of Sarkeesian, Quinn et al., as noted in multiple first-rate sources. CIreland (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Different type of censorship but one that definitely can be documented as part of what the mainstream media sees the proGG action doing (harsh tactics to silence voices they don't like). --MASEM (t) 20:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, you don't want to make it seem bigger than it is. But I think that's just a little off. My impression is that he agrees about its concerns, but thinks the its silly and childish to focus on gaming journalism. Halfhat (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

To me, it seems like he is trying to take an easily impressionable group (namely they will praise anyone who is on their side at this point) and bringing them to his side by using their language to his advantage.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

to anyone who reads the article it is clear : "'Gamergate' is not interesting," it said when I asked about its views on the movement. "That highly apolitical youth suddenly awaken to broader censorship, media ownership is." and as is clear from the earlier "#GamerGate'ers should know that the pattern of censorship & cronyism they see is mirrored at the very top. Level up:" - the whole "level up" is snide comment that their concerns haven't left the newb zone. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was encouragement to follow through to the top. Though perhaps this is the issue with social progress, 140 characters at a time. AnyyVen (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of the wikileaks twits are verging on incomprehensible, but "'Gamergate' is not interesting," is pretty clear. there is no interest in their claimed focus gamergate, only in the general principle of being a critical consumer of mass media particularly about actually important subjects. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe this is OR. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I added this above to the Media criticism section. Feel free to contribute there, too. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a different issue entirely, TBH.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

His support is extremely notable but coverage is barely if not-existant, I saw two articles that mention the AMA and cover all question except the shadowbanning/gamergate thing. Wikileaks even called out SJWs which is weird Loganmac (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

uhh, I dont know anyone who is in support of corrupt journalism and censorship. and the issue of "corrupt journalism" in relation to gamergate is repeatedly identified as merely an "ostensible". the claims of "censorship" have long been lost in the dust as anything any of the reliable sources cover when they discuss "gamergate" . and I am pretty sure that if gamergaters had two neurons that could make a synapse they would not choose someone who has been holed up for several years attempting to avoid charges of sexual harassment as the poster boy for claiming that gamergate is not about sexual harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Chill out man. These rants only help to polarize, and stop injecting personal opinion for things other than how best to improve the article. Halfhat (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

where is any effort to improve the article? littering the talk page with yet another link and no specific content suggestions is the issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

DUE or UNDUE

• Proposal to add: Many gamergaters began following and re-tweeting comments from Wikileaks which contrasted the front page coverage given to the death threats from gamergate to the lack of media interest in covering death threats that had been issued against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. While Assange found gamergate itself uninteresting, he was encouraged that a demographic of formerly "apolitical" people was now interested in the workings of the media.

References

for your consideration -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems good to me. I have no objections. Halfhat (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Does not seem good to me. "Supporters of Gamergate began following and re-tweeting Wikileaks' comments, which contrasted front page coverage of death threats attributed by news outlets to Gamergate to the lack of media interest in covering death threats that had been issued against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in 2010. Assange encouraged a demographic he saw as formerly "apolitical" people, Gamergate supporters, to become interested in the workings of the media."

How about that? Willhesucceed (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

No. TRPOD's was fine. There's no reason to play down the "Gamergate is not interesting" statement quoted from Assange.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"Supporters of Gamergate began following and re-tweeting Wikileaks' comments, which contrasted death threats attributed by news outlets to Gamergate to the lack of media interest in covering death threats that had been issued against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Assange said he found Gamergate uninteresting, and encouraged a demographic he saw as formerly "apolitical" people, Gamergate supporters, to focus on the workings of the media in general."

How's this? Willhesucceed (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"While Assange found gamergate itself uninteresting" sounds really tendentious, disagree, Halfhat's idea sounds way more neutral. And yet another mention of death threats because we can't have enough. "Gamergaters" is not a term anyone uses to refer to GamerGate supporters Loganmac (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"'GAMERGATE' IS NOT INTERESTING." is what the source found most interesting and used as a pull quote for gawdsake. That's the primary assessment from Assange about the subject of the article: gamergate. It is not "more neutral" to bury the lead or hide the third party assessment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

We have other reliable sources discussing WikiLeaks in relation to Gamergate: [5] [6] [7]. These should all be used in any material about WikiLeaks.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You keep bringing up the same sources like the newsweek that have been discussed multiple times and the same consensus keeps coming up: no they are not suitable - there is nothing specifically about gamergate, only WP:SYN-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no consensus. Stop stating that there's a consensus. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely a consensus that we cannot use the Newsweek article. Because there is nothing explicitly stated about gamergate it would be a blatant violation of WP:OR "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

How did I know you would ignore the other two sources in favor of focusing on the Newsweek article? The fact is, the other two sources (TechCrunch and The New Statesman) clearly connect the statement in the Newsweek article to GamerGate and all three together with this new source warrant mentioning more than what is in the suggested material above.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course you knew that the completely dead horse of Newsweek would be treated as a dead horse. But yet you brought it out to kick it again. The prima facia evidence of your WP:TE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Propose additions on pull outs

Please update the article on the following topics:

I find this article bias since it does not have a complete picture of what is going on with corporate pull outs of Gaming press.

• Adobe's view on gamer gate as consumer revolt, distancing itself from Gawker asking Gawker to remove their logo
• Mercedes Benz pulls out of GawkerSource2
• Also pull Unilever withdrawn advertising support for Polygon
• Olympus, the high-end camera company, has officially withdrawn support from Gawker Media
• Scottstrade pulls support for sponsorship for polygon
• Michigan Economic Development Corporation asked Gamasutra not to run its ads

Please add this information in somewhere. -Cs california (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Mercedes Benz has reinstated its advertising. (Edit: actually, there seems to be some confusion about this. But nothing worth mentioning yet.) I think Adobe is worth a sentence. The rest can be summarised as "X, Y, Z also pulled their advertising." That's about the weight they deserve since there aren't other sources. Willhesucceed (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

An article that could be useful for cover operation disrespectful nod

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/20/inside-gamergates-successful-attack-on-the-media/ It seems to cover the facts of it pretty well. Halfhat (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

New articles

Metro.co.uk commenting that GG may have been exacerbated by the frustration of a lackluster year of game titles. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, this sort of thing has been the subject of study before, i.e. the correlation of domestic violence to football losses. Tarc (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily connect that here, but the Metro article does point out that GG has created a very recent situation that will keep psychology studies in material for years (hence why we would keep in mind that we're suffering from recentism here in focusing on some issues over others). --MASEM (t) 19:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like it'd be worth adding Halfhat (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Brenda Wu's op-ed in the WAPost. A few notes I'd highlight is that she like others have seen this hurting the prospects of women in the game industry, and that the long-term sexism/misogyny. Keep in mind this is her op-ed, so don't want to use too much of this. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually reading through it I notice a major problem. It cites this Wikipedia article. I think that make it a rather questionable source for this article. Halfhat (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't cite this article. It references that it exists.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about, the Metro article? It does not "cite" this Wikipedia article in the sense that it is using it as a source for information or commentary, the author of that piece simply pointed to the Wikipedia article as an example of another place on the internet that gets it right. Tarc (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Even if it cites the WP article for information, I'm looking at the article for "new" claims that aren't present yet (eg so we are avoiding WP:CIRCULAR). But yes, this is simply saying "you can learn more about GG by reading WP's take" and not using that as the factual basis for their points. --MASEM (t) 20:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, pleas be careful though. Here's what I was referring to "The Wikipedia entry . . . shows how the whole movement is based on nothing but the ravings of a female developer’s ex-boyfriend and a level of misogyny that you’d find hard to credit existing in the Middle Ages, let alone the modern day." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfhat (talk • contribs) 10:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Well they're right.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn on MSNBC's Ronan Farrow. Again, her take, so an op-ed for all purposes outside the bumper segments. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

NYMag/Boston Globe writer Jesse Singal on saying that the proGG needs to come to the truth to the mainstream media if they hope to gain any traction (I might have linked their other piece earlier, definitely their attempt to sway the reddit thread)). If anything, this one can be use to positively id the "central" discussion of proGG at 8chan and the reddit KIA board. --MASEM (t) 05:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

WAPost on Operation Disrespectful Nod and its success (their word for it). --MASEM (t) 05:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• To note, this comments on the Gawker situation and considering how the same tactics worked there. --MASEM (t) 05:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

A slightly slanted take at the Guardian but a point I've seen repeated at others that is tied to the culture war/death of gamer aspect - that some in the media see GG as a response by white males as losing their importance and trying to fight tooth and claw to retain their relevance, citing back to similar issues in the Internet lifestyle of 2007. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: we obviously (for reasons already stated) cannot use Breitbart/Milo's stuff, but the points he claims to be making that more advertizers are going to be questioning their ad campaigns with various gaming cites in lieu of the gaming sites treating their consumer base poorly (ala the Gamasutra/Intel thing) may mean more ad pulls, which is why I'm linking this so that we know to keep an eye out for the possible existence of these articles. Per WP policy, we'll believe it when we actually see it but it is the type of thing to look for if this is how Milo is claiming the GG side is winning. [8]. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Wired's take, which might help collaborate a few other opinions from mainstream sources (particularly in pointing out the opinion of antiGG writers on the proGG's intentions or lack thereof.) --MASEM (t) 17:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

From the Wired article: "The vicious response to Alexander’s article was rooted not in objective concerns, but in the deep, persistent fear that she was right: that they weren’t the be-all and end-all of videogames anymore, that they might not always get to define what it means."

"One of the most common and disingenuous tactics used to undermine women in games is to claim that they’re not “real gamers” or that the works they produce aren’t real games..."

I'd just like to point out that the article is discussing the identity of gamers and their demographic control of the market, since previously it's been asserted that this is a lesser aspect of the controversy. Again, I feel many articles have brought up something about the identity of gamers and what it means, with this particular article declaring that Gamer Gate is scared they can no longer influence the medium they enjoy. Laura Hudson remarks on this loss of influence as a positive development the media should continue to pursue. YellowSandals (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I definitely agree that "identity issue" should be a major part of the discussion, with articles like this and others noting this. (However, when it comes to the "death of gamers" articles, those we should make sure to avoid to segregate carefully since these aren't quite the same thing) --MASEM (t) 23:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The Atlantic comparing Gamergate to the issue from the 1990s with comic books, "art vs pulp", as it transformed into a different art form. --MASEM (t) 16:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 18:00, 22 October 2014 (EST)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is not a forum to air personal opinions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Re-name the "Role of misogyny and antifeminism" section to "Role of misogyny". There isn't a single mention of either feminism or antifeminism in the entire rest of the article.

Laxori666 (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes there are. Also, new comments go to the end of the page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

My apologies about the comment placement. As to feminism being mentioned, can you point out where? I did a CTRL+F of feminism and the only hits were in the section title and in the "Feminism portal" link. Laxori666 (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh ok never mind, "feminist" and "anti-feminist" do appear. Laxori666 (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

How about something more general like role of gender issues? Halfhat (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Just "Gender issues" would work. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a very good suggestion, since a lot of articles have spoken about how Gamergate has been characterised as a white male etc. demographic. We can cover both misogyny and that under this section.Willhesucceed (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No. The reliable sources well and truly agree that misogyny, specifically, is an important piece to the puzzle. Removing that word is right out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't gender issues cover the accusations of misogyny? It's not like it'd be whitewashed out of the text. Halfhat (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Misogyny is the only real gender issue at hand, is it not?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No, there's a lot more, hence why it isn't called "Role of Misogyny" Halfhat (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It was my impression that misogyny and antifeminism went hand in hand.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Very different terms, though they might share a few elements (particularly if you read misogyny as being beyond just hatred of women but including dislike or prejudice) --MASEM (t) 00:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Is antifeminism not a form of misogyny?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If one defines feminism as "aiming for equal treatment of women", one could be antifeminist but not strongly misogynic; the person may be indifferent to women but still feel they should not be treated as equal. They aren't synonymous, definitely. --MASEM (t) 00:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's not use this as a forum for this topic. Ryulong is correct that scholars have argued it is intrinsically misogynistic. See antifeminism for more. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hatred of women (misogyny) is not required to disagree with feminist arguments and the censorship tactics used in supporting them. Therefore, no, it's not the same at all. The two things are, however, frequently linked by people pushing an agenda. That's a major source of the cries of "misogyny" throughout this issue, as discussed in the RealClearPolitics piece. In fact, the following quote, from that piece, would be great to include in the article: "There is no allowing for discussion with the kind of people writing these articles: you agree with their worldview or you are a bigot. Personally, I feel #GamerGate is a result of this shameful attitude being pushed by those in the gaming media with positions of power for a prolonged period of time." - Sabrina Harris, British tech writer DownWIthSJWs (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Feminism != women. Therefore it's not misogyny. This is very basic logic, people. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2014 (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.

Unprotect this article

In the 7 days before this article was fully protected, the article saw this evolution, in the 7 days since, it has only seen this. This is despite Gamergate having made the front page of the New York Times. In the last week, there has been more coverage of the issue in a wider variety of sources.

With the talk pages archiving every 2 days, the entire subject of Brianna Wu's harassment has been moved almost entirely to the archives without ever having been addressed in the article.

Yes, there is going to be trolling/abuse/BLP violations/reverts - but there's already a bunch of admins watching this and there's discretionary sanctions in place. Reduce the protection level, and just get block happy. This article is the top ranked Gamergate search term, but it's out of date, it's time to let Wikipedia do its work. - hahnchen 19:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Before unprotection, there needs to be a serious (and binding) discussion about the POV tag, seeing how it was the source of the last...or if not the last then one of the recent...protections. It cannot remain like a Scarlet Letter for as long as a handful of actual editors (i.e. non-SPAs) simply disagree with the status quo but are unable to gain consensus for their changes. Tarc (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That was probably a slight at me, but I say remove the tag 'cause fuck it. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I would rather see us figure out what the approach needs to be, and that's going to be tied to the mediation request that is currently open. The tone of what GG is has changed, and much what is written now really is minor details, in addition to overweighing the antiGG side. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That Mediation request is not going to happen.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Not all parties have to agree to mediation for the mediation committee to accept it. I would not assume automatically it won't be accepted (doesn't mean it will, either). --MASEM (t) 23:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm kept completely quiet waiting for one person to actually tell me what GamerGate is so that we can actually write an article. Currently this is a manifest mess of commentaries and opinions. It is very far from encyclopedic. Koncorde (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Gamergate is a misogynistic movement of exclusively straight white cissexual male neckbearded virgin right-wing extremist Aryans that is using the $100 000 it donated to charity and concerns over journalistic integrity as a ploy to attack women." ~ Wikipedia article 2014 Willhesucceed (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I need to take a break from this article, clearly. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record, what drew me into any of this was the fact that I came here first looking for a definition of Gamergate, and failed to get one, let alone a coherent one. And it does, for the record, fail to cover the myraid claims of Gamergate ("all" sides), be they legitimate or not. It is, in my opinion and now experience, fairly one-sided. I could care less about "pro" or "anti" gamergate, but there seems to be a pretty obvious and ironic bias that prevents this article from being as informative as it should be. Bad attitudes also pollute the atmosphere in several cases. People who disagree with antiGG sources seem to very quickly get branded as not only part of the movement but with several other distasteful features as well. AnyyVen (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been saying since the beginning that all this article needed was what its proponents says, and what its critics say in separated paragraphs Loganmac (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no real "anti" or "pro" Gamergate. That is just something the Gamergate movement wants there to be so they can make themselves victims. There are people who support the movement and those that are critical of aspects of it. There is no "bias" that can ever be solved because any negative coverage Gamergate receives for the vocal minority within its ranks it will automatically assume that there is an inherent bias against them because their preferred coverage cannot exist so long as there is no centralized movement and instead just several hundred people on Twitter saying the same thing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

News flash, unbiased and proper reporting is supposed to give both sides of a controversy. When half the reporters covering this are actually part of said controversy it's bad journalism Loganmac (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

News flash: The only people deciding that there are sides and bias are the gaters like yourself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There are sides to this issue, just like there are sides to every issue that's this big. It's especially evident with the popularization of the hashtag #StopGamerGate2014. Nathan905RB (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, not per se. However, there are definitely groups for, against, and neutral to Gamergate, and those against have used a number of different tags and names including, it seems primarily, the Gamergate tag itself. So I've merely adopted that convention for ease of communication.AnyyVen (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong's hit the problem. What GG is is unknown; those that support it have not made any clear indication of what their actual goals are beyond "journalistic ethics". And because there is a minority that continue to harass women, it taints any attempt to actually define it. See all recent mainstream articles that fail to give any definition of it that is brief and to the point. --MASEM (t) 23:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how much of a valid point GGers have about journalistic ethics. I freely admit that I have no clue about this, and this is only partly because it's hard to hear anything resembling reasoned argument through all the rape and murder threats. However, what you say could be said about many historic social movements. The anti-globalisation movements of the 90s had fairly vague demands at first, plus a visible minority which seemed to just want to commit vandalism. I'm sure the situation for first-wave feminism was similar, with the media concentrating on the minority of women who chained themselves to railings and blew up letterboxes.

Not that GamerGate is comparable in its demands (whatever the hell the demands are) to these social movements, of course. I'm only picking these examples because we tend to remember historical social movements which had lasting impact. My point is only that there is historic precedent for the mainstream press failing to get the point. De Guerre (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that *all* of the "journalistic ethics" issues that GamerGate raises end up boiling down to "SJW journalists are ruining games by talking about sexism" and "indie developers have Patreons to support themselves" rather than "multi-billion-dollar AAA publishers with multi-million-dollar marketing budgets are buying positive press" has not helped the movement in its quest to define itself as something other than a retrograde backlash against those seeking to diversify the video games conversation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Running risk of being a forum, I would concede that the end goal of Gamergate is vague. "Ethics in journalism" is very indistinct and there's no real concerted framework for what they want to achieve. As such, seems to leave it very open to interpretation, making any "vocal minority" of harassers the most obvious target. AnyyVen (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The protection of this article is not the issue. there are many articles under protection that evolve and grow under protection. all it takes is users instead of ineffectual slapping of yet another section and yet another link, making an actual concrete content proposal. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Hahnchen that the article is embarrassingly out of date at this point. Let's lift the full protection and go to semi-protection. Keep the PoV tag on until we get things sorted, but in the meantime we can get back to editing. I'm confident that all the established editors here can proceed with restraint, taking disputed issues to the talkpage as-needed. --Elonka 19:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @Dreadstar: - Since you've protected the page, the talk pages have generated 400+ kb of noise without any actual content. There are already discretionary sanctions in place, there are plenty of admins watching this article, so let's open the article to productive editing and stop this pointless talk-page noise. - hahnchen 19:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Failure to successfully arrive at a consensus for any edit requests in all of that talk page discussion would seem to me to be an argument against unprotection. Protected does not need to equal stagnant, if there is consensus for improvements. And if there isn't, what good will unprotection serve?--Trystan (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because this talk page goes nowhere, doesn't mean the article doesn't. See the links at the top of the section for before and after snapshots of protection. - hahnchen 23:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that the request for unprotection was denied. But I also misread the default date for unprotection, which is only a few days away. Until then, continue wasting your time replying to the utterly pointless threads below. - hahnchen 21:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Free Beacon

Some more politics talk. Link. Willhesucceed (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

please dont just litter the talk page with yet another source. if you dont have a specific content suggestion, doing so simply turns the talk page into a meaningless forum that results in lots of wasted time, increased frustration and no improvement to the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not think there is anything that is forumy about suggesting links that could be used to improve the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at the 9 pages of archives and the no change to the article and make the argument that the "litter the page with links" method has helped generate better encyclopedia content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It helps to identify possible approaches to improve the narrative knowing what sourcing exists to back that up. This is not a waste of space, it's just that while this is locked down, and while things are moving relatively fast, it doesn't make sense to rush into figuring out the solution. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason why the article hasn't changed in over a week isn't because the archives are full of links. De Guerre (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like a lone solitary opinion I've never heard before, "disliking #gg because it use similar tactics that are used by the selfsame people objecting against it." If we could find more sources that say the same then we could add that to the article. But right now all this could get would be a single sentence, maybe two conjugated sentences, if even that. Currently it's just an opinion. --86.145.190.189 (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

This source could be useful in putting together a section on the increasing politicization of the debate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

RealClearPolitics/Reason on SJWs

Cathy Young explains Gamergate's relationship with SJWs. It's not misogyny to take issue with grievance-mongers. This article will appear on Reason soon. Link Willhesucceed (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason you keep making these new threads like this?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If I had to guess, it's because every source that attempts to discuss what Gamer Gate is aside from "misogyny" has been shot down. He's just tossing darts at a dart board now and waiting to see which sources don't get immediately rejected, if any. Speaking of, this article contains a fair amount of research and level-headed discussion of the pro-GG side, highlighting some of the main gripes and cultural clashes that GG perceives, including an in-depth look at some of the positive and negative influences the Feminist ideology has played. It looks pretty professional. Ironically, although Wikipedia's acceptable sources page does mention biased sources are not considered reliable, they are being used to accuse Gamer Gate of misogyny in Wikipedia's voice for this article and also being used to justify the "Misogyny and Anti-Feminism" section which frankly seem slanderous to me, but I've expressed this.

I assume this article is useless until there are as many like it to defeat the quantity of articles saying Gamer Gate is about "dead gamer culture", "ingrained misogyny", and nothing else. YellowSandals (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's more of a question as to why Willhesucceed feels the need to repeatedly create new sections on this page regarding whatever new article he has found that discusses whatever subject the header concerns. And also, what Gamergate considers "biased" is different from what Wikipedia considers biased.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I maintain that inflammatory language that lacks clear definition and possesses an obvious negative connotation is not an objective, unbiased way to describe anything. I invite you to look a the Klu Klux Klan article, since I invited you to look at the Hitler article once before and you scoffed. Notice the Klan article doesn't open by saying the clan is a bigoted organization designed to spread evil. The opening statement describes various iterations of the organization, then distinctly states they're classified as a hate group "by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center". Factual information. Not opinions. How is it so prohibitively difficult to choose neutral language when writing this article? Just because the plurality of sources are calling Gamer Gate misogyny, that doesn't mean Wikipedia's voice should be used to directly describe this controversy as one of misogyny, especially when it's clear that people can and do disagree because the definition of "misogyny" is based strictly on non-uniform opinions.

Wikipedia contains clear examples of controversial groups and organizations being described in a neutral tone, establishing who holds which opinions without representing those opinions as facts. This article needs to be like those. Explain why this is impossible thus far. YellowSandals (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason you're writing essays in response to my two sentence comments? And this is not an article on a group. It is an article on a divisive controversy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a controversy that is being described on Wikipedia by using negatively connotative terms that lack universally understood definitions. The reasoning you have expressed to justify this has been that the plurality of sources say the controversy is over misogyny, in their opinions, and therefore the controversy is over misogyny as a fact. Wikipedia does not establish who feels this debate is over misogyny. It states, using Wikipedia's voice, that the controversy is over misogyny. With no clear definition what "misogyny" is actually supposed to mean here, because there is no clear definition of misogyny since it can be perceived differently by different individuals. YellowSandals (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I should further pursue, the article also includes an entire header titled "role of misogyny". As before, with no clear definition of what misogyny is or how this word is being interpreted by Wikipedia. YellowSandals (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

That's because there's not much positive can be said about death threats, rape threats, etc. And Wikipedia has its own separate article on "misogyny" to define what it is. That doesn't have to be done on this page. And you are, like every gater editor before you, insisting that the use of "misogyny" on this page somehow means that "Gamergate is all about misogyny" when the article does not discuss that. It points out that there are misogynistic undertones and acts that can be considered misogynistic, just as it points out the desires for ethics and objectivity in games journalism rather than discussion of the plot itself. Just because one word is on this page does not define the whole of the subject by that word.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not asking you to paint Gamer Gate in a positive light. I am asking you to maintain a neutral tone and write the article to state who holds which opinions. Wikipedia does not hold the stance that the KKK is a hate group. "The Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center" holds that stance. Do you understand? Wikipedia does not hold the stance that Gamer Gate is a controversy of misogyny. Gawker, Times, and GamaSutra hold that stance. Representing the stances of these publications as the stance of Wikipedia simply because that stance is in the plurality is not acceptable. YellowSandals (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of reliable sources paint "Gamergate" as a pile of misogynist harassment. That is why this article will reflect that. Tarc (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That is why the article is biased. Because the plurality of sources have taken a stance, and Wikipedia has used that as an excuse to express the same stance. The article needs to state who holds the opinion that the Gamer Gate controversy concerns the non-specific, negatively connotative accusations. Wikipedia should not be openly holding this stance itself. The plurality of media sources are of the opinion that the debate is one of misogyny. A smaller slew of sources counter the controversy is over other details. Wikipedia, presently, has expressed an opinion on the matter by point blank stating the issue is one of misogyny. YellowSandals (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no way for this article to ever be "unbiased" based on the definition used by the gamergate movement, which is a non-centralized and vaguely defined group that has no way to represent themselves to dispell the concerns that they're reactionary, misogynist, and hatefilled. And we can't do jack shit while the article is protected.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It becomes unbiased by expressing opinions and stances as opinions and stances. By stating who holds those stances. Not by using Wikipedia to represent the stance with the greatest apparent prevalence as a fact rather than as a stance or opinion. I know the article is protected, but I think this is the core issue that needs to be resolved to remove bias. Gamer Gate is not a "debate concerning misogyny" - it's a cultural conflict involving multiple parties, and the involved parties each hold their own stances. Misogyny is a non-specific, negative accusation being levied against one side of the controversy by the greater quantity of sources, but that is not an excuse for this article to describe the controversy in those accusatory terms or to have headers describing the "role of misogyny" when it cannot be clear what is meant by "misogyny". YellowSandals (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll say this once more and then move on: Neutrality on Wikipedia does not mean what you appear to believe it means. Neutrality does not mean we can't use descriptive words that are used by reliable sources. It would be an opinion to state that "GamerGate is misogynistic," and hence we do not so state. Rather, we state that misogyny is a part of the debate around GamerGate — that is not an opinion but an undisputed fact and Wikipedia will so present it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Starting new threads insures the sources are noticed and can be discussed. Plus, the sources are not all related and raise different issues. Were this article unprotected it would be a simpler matter as we could immediately take action regarding the source. I believe you should stop complaining about someone posting sources that could be used in the article and try to discuss how they can be used. Her piece actually provides some great even-handed background information. This could also be of use on Sarkeesian's bio or on the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be a great article to help produce a level description of what Gamer Gate is about on the Gamer Gate perspective. However, because articles referring to Gamer Gate as "misogynist" or otherwise non-specifically wicked aren't deemed as biased for some reason, I assume this article's position that Gamer Gate may have more to do with a variety of concerns will get it labelled as fringe. Given the quantity of "reliable sources" accusing Gamer Gate of misogyny or of being composed of petty man-children, I worry that any article that discusses anything else will be labelled as fringe. YellowSandals (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason we can't give what the GG is from the proGG , as explained several times, is that there is no central leadership voice for the proGG that the media can identify to give a concise, accurate statement of the proGG side, so they have to guess and feel around. That is not WP's fault or responsibility to try to fix if reliable sources have tried and failed to come up with something. --MASEM (t) 06:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: I don't think this is quite right. There are some other sources, if weaker, that also explain what Gamergate is about, such as the HuffPost Live video. For a lack of better sources, we should use those. They're still RS. Willhesucceed (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate concerns / campaigns

(Sorry for the length of this - I try to keep comments short, but this is a complex issue).

One of the difficulties I have in reading that article as it stands is that it is difficult to tease out what the concerns of GamerGate are. Those concerns are covered, but they're embedded in other sections - the nearest we get to a clear statement is in the lead, but that seems it cover three separate areas (sexism and misogyny with ethics in journalism in the first paragraph, ethics and threats to gamer identity in the second, and anti-feminism/social criticism in the third).

In the body, there's good stuff in "background", but as it is the background section it isn't clear to the reader how that applies to GamerGate as it stands. When we reach the allegations about Quinn, there's a statement that GamerGate is effectively concerned about close ties between developers and journalists and anti-social criticism, but the statement is bookended by comments on the harassment. The rest seems to suggest that a major issue is sexism. In the backlash section there's a statement that Baldwin highlighted the issue, however at this point I'm not sure what the issue is that he highlighted. Presumably it is what is explained in the previous paragraph, but that seems unlikely. There's also a mention of censorship in that paragraph, but as a complaint from GamerGaters, rather than a broader concern. There's a hint in "End of Gamer identity" that a concern of GamerGate is the presentation of gamers as "dying", but that isn't clear. We do hit a fairly clear statement much later in the article, when we quote Kain as saying that it incorporates a backlash against social criticism, but that is very late. In the "Legitimacy" section we get the clearest statements about their concerns, but only in the context of refuting them.

TL;DR version - I'm having trouble finding a really a single clear statement of GamerGate's concerns in the article. I understand that this in part because, as a leaderless movement, they don't present themselves well, and there is no single voice that can point to what their issues are. They also probably lack a clear focus anyway. But I think we need to make a clearer statement of the concerns as they've been reported

• Anti-feminism, or a response against social critique of games, especially in reviews, and the perceived lack of criticism of these types of critiques in gaming journalism.
• Ethics in game journalism, with the particular concerns being perceived close relationships between indie developers and journalists, and allegations of collusion in the industry.

I think we need a new section, something like "#GamerGate" positioned after the discussion of the harassment of Quinn. We move the use of the tag by Baldwin in that section, and make subsections "Concerns" and "Campaigns". The stuff from Kain about the anti-social criticism moves into "Concerns" along with the statement that the false allegations about Quinn and Grayson led to a broader discussion about ethics, and expand the section a bit with other sources on concerns regarding ethics and anti-feminism. Under "Campaigns" include Operation Disrespectful Nod, #NotYourShield and Dig Dig Dig, and possibly TFYC. Reactions and critique could follow on from this. - Bilby (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that the Gamergate movement has no centralization or representation to present these concerns coherently in the first place. They are vaguely known (more transparency in games journalism, removing cronyism/nepotism in games journalism, less desire for cultural criticism) but there's nothing concrete.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

How many sources are there for this operation Dig Dig Dig? I find nothing on Bing and exactly one mention on Google.

Other than that, yes, it would be a good idea to summarise coherently somewhere Gamergate's concerns and campaigns. Willhesucceed (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I remember a few references to Dig Dig Dig a while back, but if they're hard to find it can be dropped - it was their original plan to identify and highlight problems in game journalism, and continues to run in the background. Disrespectful Nod is the most visible one.

In regard to their concerns, I agree that the specifics are a big problem. But I was reading Jesse Singal's piece in NYMag today [9], and although the article is mostly talking about how hard it is to pin down their message, it covers the same two basic themes of ethics in journalism and anti-feminism, with the argument that the ethics concerns aren't very strong. Others make the same general observations: that GamerGate is concerned to anti-feminism and ethics, so I figured we could follow the sources on those two general concerns, even if we can't cover a lot of specifics. I must admit that I find the conflict between their aims an issue, but I'm not so concerned about the validity of their concerns for this section so much as a clearer statement about what they are. - Bilby (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That seems fair, those are the two main things everyone has identified. There are other nuances that should be included as well--the effect of the internet, the culture war, etc.--so I suggest that figuring out the layout of the article is of primary importance.

I don't have time now but I'll look into that operation Digx3 thing at some point. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, the top section of the really ought to summarise, somehow, that "Gamergate started as a campaign to X, and that it has started promoting A, B and C arguments, with some division about arguments C, D & E"., because it's really not clear unless you spend a while reading through the entire article and spend a little time researching it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.43.240 (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

We have no idea if this was the case with GG - the activism side (about journalistic ethics) happened after the allegations at Quinn, so separating out the campaigning/activision stuff from the more visible events is near impossible and why it is difficult to actually definite what GG is or what is saught for. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Establish a consensus that the source written by Ryan Smith at medium.com is a primary source.

Can we agree that it is not a secondary source, but a primary one? This would do a lot to dispel the WP:RS controversy over the source. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Chess: What's the controversy? All I could dig up on the talk archives, Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Archive_5#Video_games_journalist.27s_opinion, Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Archive_9#Criticism_of_the_press. It does seem obvious that it's a primary source as he's being cited for his opinions. Probably be moot once the article is unprotected. There's been plenty of reliable secondary sources writing about this since the article was protected. Strongjam (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Strongjam: So we can completely agree that the source is primary? Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Chess: I agree with you, but my opinion shouldn't be weighted very heavily, new account and effectively a WP:SPA at the moment. Strongjam (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a self-published source, which means it's acceptable for citing his opinions if we think they're relevant to the article. However, considering how much commentary we have on the issue now, I don't see any reason to use it, and certainly not to give it an entire paragraph. We don't need to include the opinions of every video game journalist who's ever mentioned gamergate, and we certainly don't need to go to medium.com articles to find opinion on gamergate. Unless a source's opinion is extremely important to the subject, I don't think there's any need to resort to self-published sources. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

He was a member of the GameJournoPros list, so his opinion is kind of important.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

We're at the point now where we can probably let secondary sources decided who's opinion is important. Strongjam (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

More business commentary

Fortune

Dailycaller

Willhesucceed (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Collateral Damage

Seems like GamerSgate,a legitimate gaming distributor, is getting a lot of hate over this. Maybe there needs to be a disambiguation added somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.9.223.27 (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know I'm allowed to do this, but can this section be merged into "GamerSGate (note spelling)" above? AnyyVen (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

See a few sections above. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

GamersGate (note spelling)

The CEO of GamersGate (a pre-existing digital storefront for games) reportingly getting inadvertently drawn into this due to the nearness of the name. Not sure if there is something to add on this once we can update the narrative. --MASEM (t) 17:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The controversy has been very big on mob mentality. It might be worth changing the "Backlash and Social Media Campaign" section to read, simply, "Social Media Response". Then it can be used to add details about the crucial way social media has played into all this beyond the specific campaigns if we can find more sources that discuss it. YellowSandals (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Polygon also notes it. And they've even acted with a little integrity: "The GamerGate movement and Twitter hashtag is a social campaign defined by most supporters as a call to effect change in video game journalism and to defend the "gamer" identity." "The campaign is now also linked to ongoing and well-established harassment of women in video games," "many of GamerGate's supporters deny the campaign should be blamed for harassment."

Willhesucceed (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Remind of what WP:UNDUE says

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

Key points here are published by reliable sources and proportion to the prominence in those sources. If the most reliable sources are giving prominence to the harassment issue when talking about GamerGate and later filling in readers about the "journalism ethics", then the article should give more weight (i.e., space) to the harassment issue. My understanding is that the majority of reliable sources do (especially the most reliable sources such as mainstream news outlets), in fact, follow this pattern. If I'm wrong and it's the reverse, than the article should reflect that.

There are so many single-purpose accounts and point-of-view pushers swarming to these articles, it's important to remember Wikipedia's policies. UNDUE is not an essay or suggestion. It's required. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Keeping the article unbiased

Most Wikipedia pages out there are unbiased articles that take no side, provide legitimate articles of both sides, but there is no side that the article gives favor to. This article appears to be biased, as it leans on the side of the feminists. Now, although I am not in favor of feminists, I am in favor of having a article that gives legitimate reasons for both sides, but is overall, unbiased. I feel that this article is biased towards feminists as their arguments get entire sections, while the other side merely gets a subsection. I propose we try to keep this article as unbiased as possible and try to keep the article from taking any sides of the argument. Theawesome67 (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You have no idea what you're talking about. This article reflects what the preponderance of reliable sources have to say on the subject; if those sources give credence and credibility to one "side" of a topic, then the article reflects that. Those who feel the moon landings were faked do not get equal footing in Apollo 11, nor do the opinions of deniers get to "balance" holocaust denial. Tarc (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It's preposterous to equate the GG side of things along side moon hoaxery and holocaust denial when there is obvious systemic bias in the articles. There's numerous 'sources' that violate WP:SELFPUB but anything pro-GG is hand-waved away as not being from a reputable source. Q ^{T C} 16:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring the sources for the numerous quotes in the article, most of the coverage of GG now can be sourced primarily to non-VG, highly regarded mainstream sources, and that's still going to show very little discussion of the proGG side of the equation. (While a parody/humorous article, this clickhole article nails everything that makes reporting on GG a problem in terms of getting their side right - because no one in a position to write about it can figure it out). --MASEM (t) 16:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you give examples of these self published articles?Halfhat (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Using Kotaku as a source to say there isn't anything to the claims of ethical issues at Kotaku. Q ^{T C} 19:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that we can now even cite that the ex has said himself that he never inferred that Quinn was in a relationship with Grayson with the release of DQ, and that everyone else in the world trusts the editor of Kotaku and the fact no claimed review exists, this is not a point of debate. Feeding that any further is not acceptable anymore. --MASEM (t) 19:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Not preposterous at all. Fringe is fringe, in a variety of topics in this project. Many, many topic areas are plagued with fringe pov-pushers, from Israel-Palestine to 9/11 to Obama. This is no different. Tarc (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that this is essentially a battle between the media and video game players, so the vast majority of the reliable sources available (written by said media) will be anti-GG. Wikipedia is confined to reflecting what RSes say, so most viewpoints from the Gamergate side will not be represented. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Plus finding out about it instead of just saying what other people tell you requires investigation and effort. Halfhat (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You are perhaps confused as the purpose of an encyclopedia; this isn't a project that supports investigative journalism. Peruse Original Research & Synthesis of souces for starters. Tarc (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean where it says 'Original research doesn't apply to talk pages?' Tutelary (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not referring to this article but the news sites. Most new is so shallow and baity, I was sort of in rant mode. Sorry. Halfhat (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That's ok, most don't pay much attention to Tutelary's off-tangent responses. So what exactly were you saying, that the media isn't putting in effort to investigate Gamergate? Tarc (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The justification that this article can be one sided due to a 'preponderance of reliable sources' is a fallacy in itself. The majority of articles cited on both sides of this controversy are opinion pieces. They prove nothing more then that 1 person (the author of the article) feels or believes one thing or another. By painting the opinions of some as encyclopedic fact, while labeling opinions attributed to the other side of the controversy as 'fringe', you paint your own narrative and create a non-neutral article. Using such emotionally charged topics as Holocaust denial and absurd topics as moon landing denial to belittle the other side of the debate in this talk page show a clear bias towards one view in this controversy, especially when it is such a gross exaggeration given that opinions on both sides can both be seen as having legitimacy. Here are two articles that show another side to this controversy, which are not included in this article, and could be used as reliable sources to make this article more neutral. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/10/17/Supporting-GamerGate-Does-Not-Make-You-a-Bully http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/21/Incredibly-GamerGate-is-winning-but-you-won-t-read-that-anywhere-in-the-terrified-liberal-media DarbyRM (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart is not a reliable source. Strongjam (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

How exactly can you determine that Breitbart, a 'Politics, conservative news and opinion' site with an Alexa rating of 1,159, is not a reliable source, when this article cites Kotaku, a gaming blog with an Alexa rating of 1,800, as such? DarbyRM (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Alexa ratings are a rating of traffic not reliability. As for determining reliability, the controversies section of Breitbart explains why they aren't considered WP:RS. Strongjam (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Things like editorial policies are what counts not mere popularity, unless their opinion is regarded as relevant, though I think that comment could do with a bit more justification. I think a lot of experienced users are a bit burnt out here though. Halfhat (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Controversy is not a qualifier for or against reliable sources, in fact, reliable source states 'Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.' Also, if a few instances of poor fact checking rules out every article published by a news outlet, then every major news organization from Fox to CNN to NBC would have to be removed from every Wikipedia article, as every one has had instances of such behavior. Given that many of the sources cited in this article are self published, opinion pieces being used to represent the opinions of larger groups of people, the 'readership' of such sources should also be taken into account, especially when labeling all opinions on one side of the debate as fringe. DarbyRM (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:QUESTIONABLE, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts". You're not going to get consensus that it is a WP:RS. Strongjam (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not about traffic count, it's about the fact that the site has a demonstrated and well-documented history of misrepresenting facts and outright fabricating stories when it suits their political purposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I won't try to defend Breitbart as its becoming a distraction from my initial point. The point is using opinion pieces to justify a one sided article while not including many sources that take the other side. Here are two more articles from a source already cited in the article who has mostly seemed to change his mind about the movement, which can be used to shift the tone of the article to a more neutral voice. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/10/09/gamergate-is-not-a-hate-group-its-a-consumer-movement/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/10/06/its-time-for-video-game-journalists-to-engage-with-gamergate/ DarbyRM (talk) 0:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

We already use his work fairly extensively.

If we have 15 sources saying one thing and 2 or 3 sources saying the other... our job is not to make it appear as if the number of sources on each side is equal. That is not "neutrality," that is in fact bias toward the minority sources. See due weight. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to throw in my two cents that, in light of the numerous major corporations pulling revenue support away from several of the "reliable sources" Wikipedia is using to give Gamer Gate an "unbiased" description, it might be worth considering why that is and how it reflects on Wikipedia to rely on opinion pieces to construe these periodicals' opinions or a stances as factual statements. Those advertisers have whole teams keeping track of the demographics involved and how these journals are responding to the controversy - I know that numerous philosophers have stated that misogyny is ingrained in our very society, but Artistotle was known to be wrong in his time, so perhaps our modern ones are wrong sometimes too. Freud was very popular and thought to be scientific, but his work has been subjected to extensive disagreements. Maybe it is prudent to once again consider re-writing the article to state who expresses which opinions, rather than stating those opinions as facts. Just re-structure with neutral headers and an intro that doesn't contain derogatory language, and explain who is on the record as saying what things about the debate.

If this were an article about one of Freud's patients accusing Freud's methods of not working, the article wouldn't describe the controversy as a "debate concerning deep, ingrained penis envy" or include a header titled "the role of penis envy and subconsciously feeling threatened by Freud" just because more secondary sources sided with Freud. A good encyclopedia would only plainly state the controversy and who holds which opinions. YellowSandals (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

We really, really don't care about what advertisers think about sources. In fact, the hallmark of many of the most reliable sources is that they don't accept advertising at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, it suggests that the sites losing their ad revenue have been maybe not so neutral. Maybe a bit hostile. Maybe enough so that big companies don't want to be associated with that hostility. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, when these periodicals say "misogynist", they're using the word as an insult and not as a scholarly assessment? Maybe Wikipedia shouldn't represent insults as though they were scholarly assessments? YellowSandals (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You're not asking a question that we can answer. It's not up to you or I to parse what reliable sources say and decide why they're saying it or what it means. That would be original research and synthesis, which is categorically prohibited as something that Wikipedia is not. We weight article content based upon its prominence in reliable, published sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I mean, it's possible that these large companies read what Gawker was saying and they felt it was insulting. You know, because "misogyny". It means you disrespect women. We all know better than that. Maybe - and call me crazy - but maybe when Gawker says these things, some of their readers feel insulted. And then when people come to Wikipedia and they see the insults repeated in Wikipedia's voice, they feel insulted again. And like, I don't know, you have this controversy that just keeps going for months, and it has no leaders or clear goals, but tons of people are angry anyway and identify through the controversy.

Call me crazy, but maybe some people don't interpret "misogyny" as a neutral, clinical word when it is applied to them, and Wikipedia should maybe think really, really hard if that's where some of the bias accusations are involved. Does Wikipedia seriously need to track down a secondary source to prove that some people think being called a "misogynist" is not an objective thing, but rather just a blunt insult? YellowSandals (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not profound, honestly. Why does there need to be a header and an opening statement that contain insults against a group of people in Wikipedia's voice? YellowSandals (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You're asking for something that doesn't exist. There isn't a "neutral, clinical word" for everything. We use the words that sources use.

This article does not anywhere state as an undisputed fact that "GamerGate is misogynistic." We state as a fact that GamerGate involves issues of misogyny (which it indisputably does, based upon an effectively-unanimous consensus of reliable sources) and we note that a number of writers published in a wide array of reliable sources have discussed GamerGate in the context of misogyny, and how they have discussed it. We have a section header that says "Role of misogyny and antifeminism" because the presence and role of those two concepts in GamerGate is a significant part of the debate and, based upon reliable sources, clearly the most contentious part. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

With a great big sigh and a heavy heart, let's crack open the Wiki article on misogyny, must we? Here we go: "Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women."

Okay. Vague. Seems like it leaves a lot to interpretation. It can manifest in "numerous ways", so are there more ways than the Wiki article describes, or does the Wiki article not cover a comprehensive list of all ways misogyny can manifest? Is Gamer Gate misogynistic in ways the Wiki article maybe hasn't covered? If our readers come to this Wiki and they haven't brushed up on their clinical definitions of misogyny, should they just suck up their tears and get out? I don't think so - that's not a very professional attitude. The term "misogyny" is either jargon that will fly over the head of the uninitiated, or it's an insult because the average person would never want to be called misogynist.

You wouldn't describe a debate with Freud as an "indisputable" concern with penis envy. Why do you describe Gamer Gate as an "indisputable" controversy with misogyny? YellowSandals (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The word means what it means. "Violence against women" and "denigration of women" are certainly an indisputable part of the controversy over GamerGate. Citing this is trivial. Whether you or anyone else likes it or not, they are the issues around which the mainstream media has focused its attention on the movement. We can sit here and argue until the cows come home why this is so, but the key is that this is so and disliking it won't change it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

So at the very least we can agree that the media says this. Wikipedia says it because it "has to", but let's set that aside. At the least, do you find that some people would find the term "misogyny" to be derogatory? If I could find a reason to call you misogynist and I told you that you were, would you feel it was a clinical assessment? Or do you feel I was calling your moral character into question? YellowSandals (talk) 07:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure people who are part of GamerGate don't like hearing from reliable sources that those sources think GamerGate is founded in misogyny. We don't take into account what people like or don't like about what reliable sources say about groups they're part of. There is no right to be thought well of or right to be portrayed as you wish to be portrayed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The KKK page describes the KKK as a hate group according to "sources x and y". If you want to describe Gamer Gate as a hate campaign, then Wikipedia needs to say it's described as a hate campaign according to "sources x and y". Wikipedia should not use its own voice to directly accuse any groups of being, misogynist, hateful, or otherwise derogatory. YellowSandals (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Once again, we do not describe GamerGate as "misogynist." At this point, I have to believe you are willfully misreading the text. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The KKK article doesn't describe the group as "one concerned with racism and ingrained hatred" in Wikipedia's voice. Because the KKK article is neutral. This one isn't. YellowSandals (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Once again, you're misreading the article. This article is not about a group called GamerGate, this article is about a controversy called GamerGate. We neutrally describe the controversy as involving issues of misogyny in video gaming, among other things. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you remember when Tim Crews had advertising pulled from his newspaper for refusing to reveal a source in a police corruption case? No, probably not. Anyway, at least one of these corporations has since apologised for pulling ads. http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/10/04/intel-apologizes-for-pulling-ads-due-to-gamergate-pressure/ De Guerre (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Intel hasn't reinstated its ads though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

They didn't bring the ads back. My point still stands, multiple advertisers are removing ads and I think it calls into question the toxicity of these articles. I'm not asking that they be stricken, but only that Wikipedia should reconsider repeating the accusations of these periodicals with Wikipedia's voice. I just want the wording changed so that it's clear the periodicals hold these opinions. The "misogyny" thing is in almost every source, and it absolutely needs to be in this article, but it needs to be stated as an opinion of these sources. YellowSandals (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Surely the allegation that Gamergate has a highly toxic aspect to it is precisely the issue? "Danny Casolaro committed suicide, so you see it *proves* he was mentally unstable!" De Guerre (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Here are a couple of articles that could be used to present more details of viewpoints sympathetic to Gamergate:

• GamerGate: Part I: Sex, Lies, and Gender Games
• GamerGate, Part 2: Videogames Meet Feminism

Both articles include the opinion of women who side with Gamergate. The first gives details about experiences the author, Cathy Young, longtime writer on feminism and gender, has had interacting with feminists in similar situations and venues, and notes the nasty responses women who disagree with progressive feminists receive from same, such as being accused of being either frigid or advocating for rape. It also has a pretty comprehensive and balanced retelling of the whole series of events. The second includes comments from a female tech writer and gamer who notes any attempt to analyze criticism from women is demonized by gaming publications. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 11:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I feel like these sources have been brought up before, if only because Firefox is saying I've visited one of them previously.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Part 1 I've mentioned here before; Part 2 is new as of yesterday. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a tactic that one often sees in politics; when one side of an issue has a majority of some gender/class/creed grouping, the opposition will dig up a few members of that grouping who disagree, thinking that it somehow bolsters their argument. There are certainly some African-Americans who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012...a whopping 6%. That's a statistically insignificant amount, just as the handful of women who support Gamergate are. Also, yes, we've already seen the Reason link, up in the so-called "Harassment of Gamergate supporters" section. Tarc (talk)

Tarc, unlike the politically polling data, there's no evidence that only a minor 6% of women support Gamer Gate. There's really no telling how many women are involved in either side of the debate as that info is not available. Even if you go by the demographics of who's playing which games that might be affected by the debate, which we have data and discussion on in the Wiki article, it would still be hard to say which demographics are pro-GG or why because most of the sources have stuck exclusively to calling Gamer Gate misogynist and not much else. For that matter, you can't dismiss a source on the basis of gender demographics, regardless. YellowSandals (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right; it's more like 0.001% here. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's on you to prove it. While you're at it, consider that the data we have shows hardcore gaming is 30% women, and that does imply that those women appear to be fans of those types of games as they stand, or at the least those women do involve themselves with that culture. Perhaps you feel the right to speak directly on those women's behalf, which as I hear on forums is part of their contention, but without some data to support you, what you're doing right now is superfluous. YellowSandals (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree; it'd be good if we didn't just make up statistics. The question of how many women support GamerGate is unanswerable without being precise about what you're trying to measure. I dare say that a large proportion of gamers whom you could reasonably call "hardcore" don't invest as much time in US game journalism as many on both sides seem to think; social media (by which I include things like Steam Greenlight) are probably more influential these days. It's also possible (once again) that many people would be more sympathetic to the "journalistic ethics" side if it was possible to hear the argument through all the doxxing and rape threats. De Guerre (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

More criticism of the press

Mirror "the mainstream press have almost exclusively focused on the abusive side of the campaign"

Motherboard Some writer basically going, I'm not going to compare Gamergate to ISIS, but I am. Still a few interesting quotes. "It’s how you end up with dozens of GamerGate explainers that all say the exact same thing." "I am not about to compare GamerGate to the Islamic State, but there are unfortunate similarities in how the media treats both." “Random people tweeting awful things is not news” "in many cases, those stories don't serve a newsworthy interest" "There's no risk in denouncing the movement" Basically holds Gamergate isn't newsworthy but clickbait journalism makes it so.

Willhesucceed (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that the Mirror article does not exactly call the media coverage wring in that. Far from it in fact. Artw (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Add that the Mirror is, for WP purposes, a tabloid paper and one to avoid. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

To borrow a bit from Inigo Montoya, I do not think those articles say what you think they're saying. Esp the Mirror, which points out that what the pro-Gamergaters' argument boils down to every time is "but but it's not US that're doing the harassing! WE'RE the concerned-for-ethics Gamergaters...THOSE GUYS out there are the harassers!". Know what they call that? The No True Scotsman fallacy. Tarc (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The bulk of sources we've seen here being presented as critical of press coverage are the same. Artw (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Though I'm pretty sure that we can at least present the argument (if sourced, I think I remember seeing it, but have to look) that the proGG have questioned if the coverage of GG is unbiased because the very journalistic sources are the ones that they are questioning (eg you can't be your own judge, jury, and executioner). This as a claim, not a fact, yet. --MASEM (t) 19:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I note we haven't used any of Milo's pieces yet. As opinion at least, they're fine. He's criticised the press. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's rather convenient to argue that "everyone is unfairly biased against us, except for those who are for us." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's also convenient to stretch things to "everyone" in order to make an argument, but Gamergate isn't arguing that the whole press is unethical, just that Gawker (Kotuku), Vox Media (Polygon) and some others are. Awaker81 10:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there's been a ton of arguments on this page that basically every negative article written about GamerGate is "biased" in some way. You don't control GamerGate, so I'm not sure how you can make the flat statement that "Gamergate isn't arguing" something. As mentioned before, anyone who shows up waving the flag and saying whatever effectively is GamerGate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

WRAL Techwire

"The majority of the blame for this situation lies squarely on the shoulders of the reporters who are willing to compromise their integrity for perks."

"[Gamergate]'re not wrong in their main supposition"

"Except the response from the gaming media and associated outlets has been so overblown they’ve actually made #GamerGate important. Major players in the space are so intent on protecting their cash cow that, in an attempt to squash the movement, they’ve negated any shred of journalistic integrity they might have had."

Willhesucceed (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yea, that author is a real piece of work. A week a go he hosted a reddit AMA, and his primary piece of advice is "find the gays, the women, and the transgendered" to sell Gamergate for you. I touched on this sort of thing in an earlier thread; you (the collective GG "you", not you in particular) can't just dig up token minorities to help shield your group and sell your narrative. Tarc (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Potentially, he's saying he thinks there are extremists speaking for the LGBT community, so he's recommending that GamerGate be inviting to the LGBT community so that they speak for themselves and challenge some of these claims of bigotry. What's your point, Tarc? YellowSandals (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Actual discussion on content to add

The past two weeks have seen this page full of threads pointing to new news stories that had ocme out and vague suggestions as to the content that should be added to the article at some point. So as the article will be unprotected within 24 hours (I think) we should just cut the crap and explicitly state content that should be added in the two weeks that things have stagnated:

1. Milo Yiannopoulos's leaking of GamesJournosPros, the creator's "I probably did some things wrong but it's not bad", and the media's general big shrug over it

   Sources Forbes: The Escapist #GamerGate Forums Brought Down In DDoS Attack, The Week: Intel's awful capitulation to #gamergate's sexist thugs

2. WikiLeaks's support of GG, and perhaps The Verge's criticism of the support seeing as they're still the only people reporting on Wikileaks' latest tweets in the first place

   Sources The Verge: WikiLeaks is winning over Gamergate with a confusing Twitter campaign

   This Turkish news site seems to be going "Wikileaks is using Gamergate as a marketing opportunity" but I'm not 100% sure on the translation or if they can be considered a reliable source. Most out there about the latest series of tweets from Wikileaks has been just portals pointing to the piece by The Verge.

3. Anita Sarkeesian's death threat at Utah State University

   Sources CNN: Anita Sarkeesian forced to cancel Utah State speech after mass shooting threat, BBC: Feminist video-games talk cancelled after massacre threat, The Guardian: Feminist games critic cancels talk after terror threat

4. Felicia Day's harassment & Chris Kluwe's response

   Sources The Guardian: Felicia Day's public details put online after she described Gamergate fears, The Daily Dot: Felicia Day's worst Gamergate fears just came true, TIME: Felicia Day Writes About #GamerGate, Gets Information Hacked

5. Brianna Wu's death threats

   Boston.com: Video Game Developer: Twitter Rape, Death Threats Forced Me From Home, VentureBeat: Game developer Brianna Wu leaves home after receiving death threats for speaking out in support of women, The Guardian: Brianna Wu and the human cost of Gamergate: 'every woman I know in the industry is scared'

6. Adobe Systems pulls ads from Gawker

   The Verge: Adobe's symbolic pro-Gamergate gesture frustrates victims, ArsTechnica After #GamerGate tweet, Adobe distances itself from Gawker “bullying” [Updated], Business Insider: Adobe Pulls Gawker Sponsorship After A Writer Tweeted A Joke About Bullying In The Gaming Industry

And in addition, this piece from Metro Canada may be useful as a general reference in the article.

Are there any other points or events from the past two weeks that have garnered attention that aren't addressed here yet?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Brinna Wu [10] leaving her home after threats. Strongjam (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Added Wu.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The reaction from Adobe also seems to have caused significant response. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] (last one is Guardian, regarding Felicia day, as above) AnyyVen (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Added Adobe.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Adobe needs to be included, as do the other advertisers who have pulled out.
• Criticism of the press needs to be expanded.
• How internet culture factors into this is important.

Willhesucceed (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for the "criticism of the press" content and the culture aspects?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure: internet and criticism of the press

They're involved topics, so we'll need to discuss what sources are saying, what to include, etc. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As I've done above, and as others have before you, could you pick out the sources in question you want to use to support your proposals instead of vaguely pointing to the previous threads you made?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm tired. Can't do this anymore. IYou didn't even think to apologise for trying to get me banned from Wikipedia. Not only have I been pretty much the only one trying to make this article more nuanced than MISOGYNY, but I've had to deal with near-constant harassment from you, Tarc, and TRPoD on top of it. I'm not going through all of those sources and forming a submission, only to have it shot down and my time wasted again. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm giving you a clear opportunity to provide the information such that it can be easily accessed and easily used to write about. I've included issues on both sides of the debate here, as best as I can at least, and I am just asking you to provide exact citations for content you want to add rather than making me do the leg work on your proposal. Just go through your old threads and pick out two or three citations for each point you want to make.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Another general relevant piece from The Guardian, perhaps on the role of journalism in the debate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As a suggestion for before, let us try to stay to mainstream highly reliable sources (and if necessary for clarity, other VG sources) to avoid the issue of claims about the bias in this article. That means things like the Daily Dot, Gawker sites, Forbes articles from contributors, etc. we should not use immediately, in favor of using the major newspapers that have been ID'd. That means, for example, we can't include the GameJournoPro stuff with just the sources given above, but the other points (Wu, Sarkeesian, Adobe, etc.) can be. And let's try to avoid any analysis itself at the present time and stick to clear facts with minimal quoting save to support the facts (ek why Sarkeesian may have cancelled here USU engagement). These facets are undeniable facts of the case and should be clear to add with strong, undisputable sourcing. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you make an attempt to spell the names right?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The difficulty with mentioning Adobe is that, by their own admission, they weren't advertising on Gawker. So in terms of symbolism, non-advertiser requesting that Gawker remove their logo isn't exactly a big deal. That it got some coverage makes it of interest, but it doesn't seem particularly significant. - Bilby (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's that they were influenced by the GG crowd that journalists took as the story, not so much the pull/lack there of. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Which gives it a degree of relevance, but we're still stuck with the "non-advertiser decides to remain non-advertiser" issue. :) It doesn't seem to warrant much weight, if any - Intel certainly warranted coverage, because they did pull a campaign, but Adobe seems far less significant. - Bilby (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

When we include that with the Intel bit (and if any other major ad pulls come up), it shows what some of the press have described this as, that the proGG side has had some "victories" in getting some companies to swing this way by working the "consumer" angle, and that we can add that other members of the press (even those not associated with the affected sites) see this as bad moves by these companies. --MASEM (t) 06:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm inclined to pull back on the Intel coverage - we spend a lot of time attacking Intel's decision at the moment, and while some criticism makes sense, it can be reasonably reduced. Toss in some of the other names that we can source, possibly throw in Adobe (even though they didn't technically pull advertising, so it seems like a bit of a hollow win), and add some more direct criticism of Disrespectful Nod per Washington Post and other sources which are discussing the more questionable aspects of what GGers are doing here. - Bilby (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

So what about the Day and Kluwe stuff? We good on that?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Instead of adding mention of every single female who ever complained about alleged harassment HERE perhaps that could be split off into a separate article. The GGC is a more specific thing than -womens and strife in gaming- and it bloats the article to discuss particular cases here. Only the initial case (surrounding the conflict of interest with reporters) should be mentioned since it directly relates to GG. Ranze (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

"every single female who ever complained about alleged harassment" Seriously? These are all specific example of actual (not alleged) harassment related to Gamergate by reliable sources. Per WP:DUE these cases should be in the article. Strongjam (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Columbia Journalism Review has an article up on Gamergate, might be useful to talk about how the media has a hard time covering nebulous movements like Gamergate. Not sure if it's WP:RS. Strongjam (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

That article has one of the better ways to describe what GG is and to describe why the media is having a problem with any good coverage of the proGG side. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Telegraph's "to date" summary. I think the last para is a great summary of the situation as we should approach it: "What does GamerGate want? We don’t know. Attempts to engage with those involved often turn into rambling, cyclical shows of defensiveness with no concrete reasoning. Reasonable party lines are drowned out in the conversation. One thing is clear: when members of the games industry are being driven from their houses and jobs, threatened, or abused, it makes GamerGate’s claim that it is engaged in an ethical campaign appear laughable." (As long as we are clear this is the media perception, not factual). --MASEM (t) 15:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The misogyny is an internet problem (not a gaming problem)

IBTimes.

I'll link back to the previous sources. Let's figure out how to include something about this? Willhesucceed (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing's been added to the article in weeks to even need to use this article to address it though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, if we worked together, instead of against each other, perhaps we'd be able to start adding things to the article. Willhesucceed (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is we all disagree on what it should be.Halfhat (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Instead of clinging to our version of how we think things should be, we should be willing to make concessions/compromises, in order to have at least something in the article. I believe that's encouraged in WP's guidelines. I've been trying to meet people halfway. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem right now is that things are moving "fast" in the situation (not that there are alot of events but there is a lot being written). So it is presently very difficult to judge how to structure the article past the initial few weeks. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to, in good faith, assume that my comment was deleted because I didn't structure it properly, being that it was my first on Wikipedia. Still, I have edited for content, in case that were the reason someone deleted me. Please do not delete me again without explaining why either publicly or privately. To reiterate...

As "fast" as things are moving, both KnowYourMeme and EncyclopediaDramatica have managed to cover the events in such a way that someone new can read their articles and come away with a sense of knowing what is going on. It is really shameful that Wikipedia can not, at a minimum, give people a straightforward rundown of what has happened. The problem here is that certain editors (I won't mention names) are determined to fill the article with opinion and yellow journalism, instead of just listing the facts chronologically.

Common sense says that you need a brief intro (the current one is poor, but better than most of the article), a section on the background leading up to this controversy (discussing the fight against SJWs in the atheism community would be helpful here, as that was a miniature preview of this fight - see InternetAristocrat's recent interview with Thunderf00t and Justicar for a summary), a dispassionate tick-tock of what has happened to date (without leaving out things that make your side look bad and with no quoted opinions), a section that enumerates the various goals (potentially with debunking and counterarguments inlined), and finally a section to gather reaction to and criticism of the movement. That would result in a very standard looking Wikipedia article, so people know where to look to find the information they want. If that can't be done, the whole page should just be blown away and replaced by external references to EncyclopediaDramatica and KnowYourMeme, as that would better serve the readers.

Finally, I think all the editors here know what has happened, even though some want to hide major parts of the story. Everyone should be looking to establish sourcing that documents the actual timeline, not just their version of it. Let readers decide what is "good" or "bad", outside of a reasonably sized section reserved for criticism. If you think pointing out death threats isn't enough to color an issue in a negative light, and feel the need to insert opinions to back that up, it might be time for you to step away from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DownWIthSJWs (talk • contribs) 16:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of the page. What you're suggesting to replace the page with goes against policy on self-published sources. Strongjam (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

NY Mag on why social media easily contributes to such behavior that GG is said to have. --MASEM (t) 20:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. To reply to your comment above ('The problem right now is that things are moving "fast" in the situation'): and yet I'm having trouble even getting a sentence or two on Milo Yiannopoulos into the article. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The Atlantic via Yahoo! News blames a large part of it on the internet, but then goes on to characterise it as a sexist reaction to the cultural shift in games.Willhesucceed (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe that allegations about the internet or the gaming community being misogynist are both inadequately sourced and not relevant enough to make calls about here. We have articles about internet and gaming culture already. If judgments are to be made about those things, they should be made on THOSE articles. We can simply say that GamerGate relates to gaming and to internet, and leave generalizations about how using the net or playing games makes you hate women to be made on those articles. Right now it seems like this GGC article is being used as a soapbox for people to vent prejudices against tech-geeks, and that is not appropriate. This article is large enough and complicated enough as it is, so I think the discussion should focus exclusively on documenting the GamerGate movement. It veers too far off topic to also make statments against gamers or web-users as a whole. Ranze (talk) 10:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a situation where misogyny and sexism have been explicitly linked to the actions and statements of some subset of gamers. It is part of this page. This page is about the controversy. Not about the movement unto itself. That means we talk about how Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and Brianna Wu have fled their homes out of fear for their lives, Sarkeesian cancelled an appearance after someone threatened to kill her and everyone in attendance (arguably because of the state's concealed weapons laws), and how there has not been one iota of evidence that Gamergate as a movement to root out corruption in games journalism has come up with anything, but has managed to get Intel to pull their advertising from Gamasutra.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Consider Basics on Structuring a Neutral Article

Hey guys, I tend to dabble in less formal sites than Wikipedia - smaller wikis with far less stringent rules on citing sources and with less structure in regards to how editing is done. Apologies if I violate a standard for formatting on the talk page.

However, I felt like I should weigh in just to point out that the article can fix some of its concerns with bias by adjusting the connotation and structure of the article to be more neutral. Right now, the article opens up and the first sentence says, "GamerGate is about ingrained misogyny in gaming culture". And while this is technically accurate because a lot of the controversy revolves around that debate, it's a way of opening the article that leads with the stance of one side. It's like making an article about the abortion debate and leading with a sentence that reads, "the abortion debate is a controversy concerning the death of unborn children". Again, technically true to write that, but by leading this way you make it appear as though the controversy is that kids are dying and the fight is over how to stop it. Likewise, this article makes it sound as though the gaming community is sexist and the argument is about how to deal with it.

The article then goes on to list "legitimate grievances of the Gamer Gate movement" at the very end of the article, and with no bullets within, making it appear as something of an afterthought to the article despite being at least as equally large as the fantastically detailed account of Zoe Quinn's harassment. Meanwhile, you have a section entitled "Role of misogyny and anti-feminism", and within that section you include criticism from a self-proclaimed feminist who believes gaming isn't sexist. While I understand that you're trying to make the readers informed that the commentator in that section does not agree with some Feminists, it seems a bit unfair to declare her an "anti-feminist" or include her under that header when apparently she doesn't identify as such.

Given the way you're doing this, an outside observer might be persuaded to think that the weight being added to one side of this controversy goes above and beyond the availability of reliable sourcing. Going forward, you ought to consider completely restructuring the article to have more neutral headers like "Media Response", "Twitter Activity", "Crticism", "Online Threats", and so on. That's a much more responsible approach than having headers in an abortion article that say things like "Ongoing Disputes Over Murdered Children".

All that said, I've cleaned up biased articles on smaller websites, so I know how it gets when you honestly feel that something you care about is being infringed upon. However, if you're extremely passionate about this article - or maybe if you're a very ardent feminist or Gamer Gate supporter - you should back up for a little bit and let some other people take over for a while, because you're on a side and you're being a lot more biased than you realize. YellowSandals (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable sources say. The reliable sources say this involves misogyny and anti-feminism. We do not say that "the gaming community is sexist," we note that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources say that there are significant elements of sexism in the gaming community. These are the mainstream, predominant viewpoints on the issue, and our articles are required to present these viewpoints accordingly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

From the talk page, you are recognizably one of the individuals with a very strong bias. Regardless of that or the preponderance of articles for or against your side, it's still clear that the entire article is written from the point of view of a single side of the argument. If I were you, I would consider this: if you really believe that the denigration of women is a verifiable Truth that needs to be fought against, then your stance can be strengthened by neutrality and criticism. When someone analyzes the research methodology of feminist sources, that is not an attack on feminism - that's called peer review and it's crucial aspect of productive research and science. For that reason, it's disingenuous to label a critical researcher as an "anti-feminist" just because you disagree with her. I know that many articles represent Gamer Gate as an issue of harassment and sexism, but do you feel there's any evidence that Gamer Gate supporters disagree with that perspective? Do you feel supporters of the other team are willfully cruel and insensitive, and confederated towards purposefully disreputable goals? If so, your understanding of the world and its politics is based on Saturday morning cartoons - your ideological opponents are not Cobra Command, and by treating them as such you've written a very unprofessional article that has no value. YellowSandals (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Uhh, no. You are pretty off on all counts on how Wikipedia works. It matters not what we as individuals think and it matters not what some gamergaters may wish to achieve. since "gamergate" is not a formal membership organization and there is no recognized manifesto or set of platforms, we present gamergate solely as the reliably published mainstream sources see it and present it. And I will remind you that you also need to assume good faith that other editors are working to achieve Wikipedia's principles of writing an encyclopedia and not cast aspersions about their motives on this talk page]]. If someone is not editing per the WP:5P, then you will need to take your concerns about their editing to the appropriate place that handles editor behavior, such as administrators notice board and be able to specifically identify how they are acting inappropriately with specific examples , not simply wildly unjustified assertions of "you are recognizably one of the individuals with a very strong bias.". You may wish to strike such nonsense to demonstrate your good faith. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Being quoted in a section that discusses the well-sourced role of anti-feminism in the movement does not label that person as an anti-feminist.

It doesn't matter what I think, and there aren't "teams" here. What matters is that reliable sources have said that there are a significant number of GamerGate supporters who are, as you say, "willfully cruel and insensitive, and confederated toward purposefully disreputable goals" and that even if they are a minority, they are a vocal and vicious minority, have committed vile acts of harassment and the "movement" as a whole has either been unable or unwilling to disassociate itself from them — and that the end result is to permanently poison the well of the debate and render the entire movement non-credible. Those reliable sources are amply presented here, and their conclusion is virtually unanimous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Much of bias is about little things that shape someone's views points by the subtle way things are worded, often with the same denotations but differing connotations, and proximity to other sentences that form connections. It's not all about what is explicitly stated. Halfhat (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Being quoted in a section that discusses the well-sourced role of anti-feminism in the movement does not label that person as an anti-feminist. But I repeat myself. There are over a dozen people quoted in that section, and I notice that you're not claiming that Simon Parkin, Liana Kerzner and Erik Kain are anti-feminists. You can literally read anything into anything if you'd like. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I think the biggest issue is that the sources are generally quite negative towards it so it's har for the result to be neutral. That said I think there is a lot of biased wording, and excessively emotive language I proposed so some stuff to try to make it better. But lets just say there was consensus to make the edits. I'm pretty new to editing Wikipedia so I'm not too sure. But it seems to me there are a couple of strongly anti GamerGate people here that really get in the way. We all have our opinions myself included, but these two (if you read you'll see who) really seem to be the ones opposing all the changes to do with bias, and seem not to even try to be neutral. I remember one in particular breaking into anti-GG rants on this talk page. I'm really not sure how to go forward or what excatly it should look like. I just hope some more experienced editors do, and get it done. Halfhat (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

we never strive to achieve a false "neutrality". An article meets Wikipedias WP:NPOV by matching the views of the reliably published sources and expert opinions. Since those sources are overwhelmingly "negative" towards "gamergate"; if our article is in fact "negative" towards "gamergate" ; that is a sign that we are doing our job in representing the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice strawman. What I criticised is the use of emotional language and wording. Not the pointsHalfhat (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually no, that's not 100% true either. Hypothetical: let's say a person is suspected of a violent crime, evidence is strongly against them, etc, but the trial hasn't happened. It may be the case that the press with presume "guilty until proven innocent", a natural human instinct, but if the trial has not happened, we cannot take the opinion of the press here. This is what is happening in GG to a different degree - there are morally wrong things being done, but no one person has been charged with any type of doing it, and while the press has pretty much painted that whole side as the same, we should not be doing the same. We can report this opinion of the press, but we cannot write this article on that same unestablished notion. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is asking you to build a false neutrality. What I'm saying is, the title itself states the issue is a controversy, and yet the article is written as if there barely is one despite this whole thing going on for, what, months now? I've been seeing it on forums all over the place. The stance of the Gamer Gate side is included and referenced, but it's listed at the bottom like it has the least significance to the entire article. Meanwhile, Somners provides some very objective criticism of the research methodology used to discuss the whole debate, and that's listed under the "anti-feminist" header. That's not rational, it's not objectives, and it's something you willfully chose to do. The available media sources did not force you to do it. You could structure this article with neutral headers, but you actively choose not to. Criticizing corollary data or the methods used to obtain them is not the same as being an enemy to an ideology - if Somners is a researcher, it's her damned job to question these things! It's what science and research is about! YellowSandals (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really understanding your objection here. The section is titled "Role of anti-feminism and misogyny." It is indisputable that anti-feminism and misogyny play a role in the debate, as exemplified by source after source after source. The section header does not suggest that everyone quoted in that section is "anti-feminist," any more than a section header entitled "Murder" would suggest that everyone quoted in that section is a murderer. In fact, we accurately and directly describe Ms. Sommers as an "author and scholar." We quote and present her views. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Indisputable? You are writing an article about an ongoing controversy and debate. Somners is a researcher who made a video debating whether or not misogyny is playing a role, questioning some of the data being used to draw that conclusion. And you put her under the "anti-feminist" header even though she describes herself as a Feminist. Consider that - if questioning the research or postulates of Feminism automatically makes you an enemy of the ideology, how could anyone ever dispute? Why would people who blindly believe in the ideology question it? By definition you've created an absolute "us Vs them" trap. Your logic is circular and you've written an article on the assumption that the feminist side of the debate is beyond dispute. That's called bias, North. You're biased. I understand your position and you should hold to your convictions, but if you can't understand the debate then you shouldn't be assisting the article about the debate. I'm not asking for you to include more info in support of anyone - I just want to see more neutral headers that don't lump critics under the "misogynists and anti-feminists" section, because Wikipedia can't make misrepresent still-living people that way. YellowSandals (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It is indisputable that misogyny and anti-feminism are a significant part of the GamerGate controversy; see all the reliable sources quoted here. One person claiming that it doesn't play a role does not somehow magically mean it's not — frankly, if she claims that misogyny and anti-feminism aren't involved in GamerGate, she's espousing a fringe theory far outside the mainstream of thought. Our section title accurately depicts the fact that the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources is that misogyny and anti-feminism play a role.

Again, your claim that titling a section about the issues it discusses somehow labels the people quoted in the section has no support in Wikipedia policy or common sense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

While I cannot agree with all you've said, Yellow, I've been trying to point this type of issue out for some time - that the anti-GG quoting in this article is assuming that they (antiGGers) are "right" and to preach that side. I know we're never going to have an article that will paint the proGG side in a light that makes them look saintly, but we shouldn't be assuming the antiGG side is impeccable as well, just because that's the side the mainsteam press has taken. We can address the common points the mainstream press has given, but we need to write this much more clinically. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, Christina Hoff Sommers is known for her opinions that are critical of modern third wave feminism (where many people consider her anti-feminist rather than her self-defined equity feminist). People were so insistent that we label her on this page as a registered democrat with libertarian leanings because the American Enterprise Institute is a conservative think tank because of her heavily conservative writings and leanings despite what she has said she is.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You can't just defend a bias by saying it's common sense, North. The point is, there's no reason to include a "Misogyny and Anti-Feminism" header when a "Criticisms" or "Media Analysis" header would be more expansive, more convenient, and wouldn't paint the subject material beneath in a strictly negative light. There's definitely a lot more media coverage depicting Gamer Gate as a sexist movement, but I think it's because of the nature of the issue. Gamer Gate itself is, when it is led, pretty factional. It's been continually springing up in new places, and each forum, Youtube following, or game dev has a unique understanding and stance on the issue. The Feminist side, however, has been pretty unified because the things they're saying follow a common and established doctrine. It's a disorganized group in conflict with a more organized group, and consequently, the media can only present the anti-GG side with any certainty. Virtually everything in support of Gamer Gate has been informal. Things like blogs, Youtube channels, forums, and other material that aren't suited for Wikipedia.

In spite of that, though, it's important to structure the article in the assumption that maybe more info will come to light as the debate continues. A header titled "Role of Misogyny and Anti-Feminism" is kind of useless and it's blatantly biased. If a more consistent leader were to emerge from Gamer Gate, you could provide no additional information beneath that header, and as it is, all it's being used for is to indirectly accuse people of being anti-feminists for having this or that opinion. However, with a header like "Media Response" or "Criticism", you could add data representing any aspect of the subject. Neutral headers are better for a lot of practical reasons, and this article will never be unbiased as long is it's trying to reconcile a section that assumes one side or aspect of the argument is indisputably correct. YellowSandals (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

We're never going to structure an article around what could happen in the future, by Wikipedia policy. We're structuring the article around how reliable sources characterize the movement now and in the past, which is all we can do. If that changes, then we change the article. Woodroar (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to use Wikipedia to predict the future. I'm asking you to use unbiased headers that are more functional. Look, Gamer Gate supporters are in this thing for a variety of reasons, right? Zoe touched off a number of nerves that have been on people's minds lately. She used the DMCA to shut down discussion - it would be nice if Wikipedia could find an article that explained how she did that and if it was legal. She was accused of trading sex for positive reviews when people are already mad at gaming media for giving AAA games reviews for money. She made her battle into a Feminist issue while there was already controversy surrounding Anita Sarkeesian. I honestly don't think a disorganized mob of people could stay mad for this long because they're afraid of losing their masculinity or something, and among those pro-GG who have a problem with Feminism, even they don't think of themselves as misogynists.

Arbitrary break 1

So I have a real problem when the entire article is structured as though none of these issues exist, and the entire debate is about "ingrained misogyny" and how to deal with it. As though GG supporters were just dealing with some Freudian, subconscious problem they refuse to admit. For goodness sake, you have a section talking about things that the Gamer Gate movement has actually done and has explained legitimate grievances about. WHY is that at the bottom? WHY do you have a header labelled from the perspective of Feminists above that, and that header is merely being used to accuse pro-GG critics of being anti-feminist?

Is there really NOTHING? Of all the grievances being expressed by the various factions of the Gamer Gate movement, Wikipedia can find NOTHING neutral that discusses the controversies involved with this thing, and the article needs to be structured to highlight that fact as hard as it can? Come on - people are coming to this page and they know they're not getting a full story. I see them griping about it on forums. Nobody is being fooled here. The article is just bad and needs to be fixed. YellowSandals (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No, really, we can't, not without abandoning our sourcing policies (per WP:RS and WP:FRINGE). For example, we know that a DCMA was used to close out one discussion - that's given - but to claim it was Quinn? That's a theory without backing and that no RS has reported. Much of what I know proGGs would like to see in this (reading on the various threads at the usual places), we simply cannot support because they are the quintessential definition of fringe theories, irregardless how much "proof" they think they have on that. We're not here to be a unbias journalistic report on this, we're here to summarize reliable sources, and they are not giving us anything we can use to give more claims to the proGG side that I know they'd like us to see. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, that's fair. I've tried looking for articles myself, but they all keep repeating the same thing and none are talking about the things Gamer Gate seems to hold grievances over. Which I think is really only promoting paranoia. Still, though, I maintain the article could stand to be restructured so that it shows it's representing criticism and opinions, because so far that's all that's really coming out about this whole controversy. There are major news sources discussing it, but it's yellow journalism - they're reporting opinions, but there haven't been many, if any, facts. It's just not practical to have a structure discussing the role "misogyny and anti-feminism" play in a controversy when everyone's opinion of what misogyny and anti-feminism is can vary so much. YellowSandals (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Going back to the beginning, YellowSandals... 1. Zoe Quinn's boyfriend never wrote a review of her game, and that is settled, proven fact. The allegation at the very base of GamerGate was a false one and this tainted the movement from the start. 2. Much of the frenzy over Zoe Quinn was slut-shaming personal attacks, right down to the third-grade-level sex jokes about "Five Guys." It might have made for some lulz on 4chan, but it's hardly the way to demonstrate that your movement is seriously interested in journalism ethics. 3. Zoe Quinn is not an "AAA publisher" — she gave her game away for free on the Internet. This leads to pointed questions about the actual motivations of the movement, given the multiplicity of available targets in the industry that are much higher-profile and have done things actually clearly unethical — like buy positive coverage through advertorials. 4. Even if there *was* a journalism ethics issue involved, the person to target would have been Nathan Grayson — the actual journalist who would have done something unethical. Instead, the movement focused its attention and/or harassment on Quinn and her defenders. 5. Throughout, the discussions and hashtag were riddled with glaring, blatant, obvious and unrepentant misogyny and sexism. The use of the codephrase "SJW" reduced the movement's opponents to caricatures. Supporters demanded that, in effect, game journalists stop writing about issues of gender, race, class, culture and politics in video games. All of those factors, and others, contributed to a perception (fair or not) that the movement's claim of "journalism ethics" was little more than a pretense for attacks on women in the industry and a retrograde attempt to stop the increasingly-diverse nature of discussion and debate in video game culture.

Now I know what you're going to say, and it's exactly what every good-faith GamerGate supporter says — "That's not me, I don't support it." Unfortunately, that misses the point. The "movement," such as it is, is organized around nothing more than a hashtag. The barrier to entry to the "movement" is nothing more than the ability to type that hashtag. Anyone who claims to be a part of GamerGate by using the hashtag effectively is a part of GamerGate, whether anyone likes it or not, and the movement will end up judged by the worst people using it. Long ago, the hashtag was rendered fruit of a poisonous tree, and the only way to move forward and beyond what GamerGate is popularly associated with is to abandon it entirely, come up with something else, develop an organization and create coherent goals.

This is not my personal opinion of the issue; this is what reliable mainstream sources have said. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't cast stones from a glass house, North. Lest you be judged by the deeds of the worst Feminists. I think your intense personal stake in the controversy is a major conflict of interest here. YellowSandals (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I stake no claim to any part in any movement and it's difficult not to notice that you declined to actually address what reliable sources have said about the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult to claim no stake when the bulk of your previous response appear to be subjective qualifications. To play devil's advocate (no relation), what is notable is the fact that Quinn's game was given glowing reviews across the board, despite the comparatively poor ratings it's received from its public (non-journalistic) audience at large, a la Metacritic for instance. Even then, these results were contested by various editors as to their notability and validity for inclusion in the article, despite their presence on the articles of other video games, and prior to a reliable source for the claim that trolls were responsible (despite the fact that many giving negative reviews also had several to hundreds of other reviews credited to their accounts, and that many sarcastic reviews ironically gave positive ratings). Regarding "the person to target," I don't know how to and therefore won't address that supposition as that's a bad road to travel down, that is, whom the appropriate "target" is. Indeed if this claim is made by secondary sources, perhaps a more effective method of framing would be, for example, "Sources have stated that Grayson would have been the target if journalistic integrity was an issue." You also mention that the hashtag was "riddled with glaring, blatant, obvious and unrepentant misogyny and sexism" - I fully agree, the issue is that that hashtag has been utilized by both supporters and detractors, and in the spirit of avoiding unintentional bias, that point should be made more clear, secondary sources permitting. I would argue that SJW is far less of an obvious caricature, or at the very least one on par, as that of the virginal, overweight adult white male with no social skills that has so often been used, especially in the eyes of readers of the mainstream media versus gaming journalism. Finally, I would avoid implying the associations of others, especially for instance, through use of such a heavy blanket statement of "Anyone who claims to be a part of GamerGate by using the hashtag effectively is a part of GamerGate," as that also includes Quinn, Sarkeesian, and Wu themselves, as they have used that hashtag, or at least, this is my interpretation of what you said. Remember: verifiable, not true. We're all working towards the same goal: a cohesive and accurate representation as best can be reported from reliably sourced facts. AnyyVen (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Your personal opinions no matter how dear and clear they are to your are meaningless without reliably published sources to support them. please read the policies WP:OR / WP:V / WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. We are done until you start backing your position with appropriate sources. and we are certainly done with you impugning other editors. WP:NPA / WP:AGF -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if I seem untoward. However, I believe nothing I have stated is outside of the facts already published with citations on Wikipedia itself let alone in recognized secondary sources. I assure you I have read the policies you've offered; however, I will consult them again. Likely, any failings I've had to adhere to them are due to my own lack of experience in their usage. I would request for my own education if you would be able to assist me by showing me which policies apply to which statements I've made, or even more valuable, how, as well. Furthermore, I'm unclear as to whom "we" refers to? Finally, I would also offer that in light of the suggestion that I'm attempting to "impugn" anyone, would also like to refer you to WP:AGF as well as WP:BITE. From my view, I saw a statement with no citations, along with some elements that do not appear to be factual/are opinion. I was attempting to provide contrast (in positions, to better facilitate consensus) as there is, clearly, dispute as to neutrality in this topic. AnyyVen (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What I'm also taking away is this seems to be confusion between arguing that Gamergate as a movement is not misogynistic versus misogyny being an issue in the debate. These are wholly different: for instance, arguing if someone is biased immediately requires that bias is a concern, whether or not they actually are. AnyyVen (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the confusion of any arguments may be, gamergate is misogynistic and there has long been an issue of misogyny in the gamer community and we have sources identifying both and identifying the former as springing from the later. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't agree with the argument "gamergate is misogynistic" because it doesn't completely make sense. I can agree with the statements that "some participants in the gamergate controversy are misogynistic" or "have done misogynistic things," which is what many sources are very particular about stating, but this includes participants from both the proGG and antiGG sides (which apparently do not exist), and also says nothing about the harassment endured by non-female persons and entities. AnyyVen (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

One of the issues involved in this debate is whether or not Gamer Gate is sexist. Sexism is an issue, and you have opinion sources stating the opinion that Gamer Gate is sexist. For that matter, do you and I define "misogyny" the same way? What about you and the Wiki's readers. If it's the dominant opinion then you represent it, but it's still an opinion and needs to be held as one. YellowSandals (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be the main issue on this page, TROPD you are stating an OPINION as a fact. Yes there have been misogynistic actions by a minority BUT you are brushing a whole movement as sexist because of that. (you will bring up sources but they re stating a writers opinion) Would you call all muslims misogynistic, violent criminals just because of the actions of ISIS? Retartist (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Your personal opinions are noted and noted as being contrary to multiple reliably published sources [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] and therefore a a minority opinion AT BEST and so deserving of minimal or no coverage AT BEST and certainly not restructuring the article to minimize the fact of the misogyny and sexism. And having been addressed MULTIPLE times before [21] and so your continued lack of clue is now heading towards the purely disruptive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

First: OR does not apply in this case as i am not either editing the article or making a specific suggestion; i am refuting a point of yours. Secondly the RS's are copying the opinion of a minority of people directly involved (sure there are a lot of sources supporting your POV but the accusation that a whole movement is misogynistic based on the actions of a few is as ridiculous as saying that islam advocates violence based on isis). Thirdly BLAPS: THE ACCUSATION THAT MISOGYNY IS THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND EVERY GAMER IS AN OPINION BASED ON THE ACTIONS OF A FEW. Therefore we should treat it as an opinion not a fact, A 'SCHOLAR' has refuted that claim. Fourthly: STICK applies to you as well. FINALLY: TE, At best i violate points 2.6 and 2.13. You however violate 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.13 2.14. And see WP:AOTE because you do this to anyone who disagrees with your view. Retartist (talk) 04:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Literally no one is arguing "that misogyny is the driving force behind every gamer." So why are you fighting strawmen? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

When i hear that gamergate is misogynistic i assume that "everyone who supports gamergate is misogynistic" is what is meant Retartist (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's a different question — not "every gamer" is part of GamerGate, not by a longshot. But no, that statement means what it says — "the movement as a whole is identified as misogynistic." #GamerGate is an identity movement, and when a person puts on a badge that says "#GamerGate," it doesn't necessarily mean they personally are misogynistic — but they are identifying as part of a movement that is misogynistic. Which taints everything they might say under that hashtag, and has permanently poisoned the well of this debate. Which is why a huge number of reliable sources have repeatedly suggested that those interested in actual sane discussions of journalistic ethics abandon the hashtag and come up with something different.

The claim that "not everyone in #GamerGate supports misogyny so the movement isn't misogynistic" fails as a matter of logic — it's effectively a version of the no true Scotsman fallacy. Which is the fatal weakness of any "movement" of largely-anonymous people with no leadership, no organization, no unified goals and no ability to gatekeep who is and who isn't part of it.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for clarifying this. Question however: as for the no true Scotsman argument, doesn't that work the other way as well? For instance there are some articles stating the whole movement is misogynistic whereas other articles specify that "some" or a "vocal minority" are responsible. At risk of seeming dense, how does one especially in terms of a wikipedia article counterbalance this? via WP:DUE? AnyyVen (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going to link this, a reddit post by a Boston Globe writer that previously wrote on GG about a month ago, and has tried to dig into the proGG side and found nothing to report on, which explains why unless the proGG tactics change, we are not going to get the sourcing that we need to give the proGG a fair shake. [22]; not a gamer, this is the thoughts of a member of the press trying to find a story to report on. And this is probably similar to what other mainstream sources are struggling with. It fully rationalizes why while there are ways to fix parts of this article, the narrative isn't going to change. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have another concern regarding the inclusion of "misogyny and anti-feminism" as it's own header. Aside from the fact that it's only the opinion of certain parties that gamers or Gamer Gate are misogynists, is there any actual proof that gaming in general is misogynistic? The insistence that Somners is an anti-Feminist because she disputes this idea kind of demonstrates that peer review for this assertion is not especially welcome. You look at something like gravity, and there are critics on the theories of gravity, but they aren't labelled as anti-gravity scientists. In other words, the assertion that gamers are misogynistic appears to be stemming from an ideology - if the ideology is using very weak research methodology and refuses peer review, then by Wikipedia's definition, it's fringe because it's pseudoscience. Am I understanding correctly?

Arbitrary break 2

There are a lot of reporters who feel that Gamer Gate is sexist, so that opinion isn't fringe. The article should be free to mention a prevailing opinion as it is, represented as an opinion. But to say that "misogyny" plays a primary role in everyone's actions? There's no hard proof of that. Somners argues it's false specifically because the data being used to support that argument is weak. There are things that are concrete and can be said about Gamer Gate, but the notion that the industry is inherently sexist is an opinion. To assert that Gamer Gate is sexist beyond the scope of opinion, you'd need articles actually gathering data on the stances of people within the movement. Yes? Until then, the Wiki should say, "Time and numerous other publications decried Gamer Gate as a sexist movement", as opposed to using wording and structure that implies the sexism is somehow a scientifically foregone conclusion.

I understand the challenge of writing this article, but the "neutrality" tag is on this article for a reason, and if the article can't even be moved towards more neutral wording and structure then I'm not sure what else can be done for it. YellowSandals (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Your insistence on "proof" is misguided. As explained above, Wikipedia publishes what reliable sources say about a topic. It is not our job to second-guess the conclusions of reliable sources.

Similarly, you are perhaps misreading the article. Nowhere does this article make the claim that "gaming in general is misogynistic." Instead, this article notes, as have a wide array of reliable sources, that there are "ingrained issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community" (and perhaps this should be expanded to say "industry" as well.) This phrase does not state, imply or even suggest that everyone in gaming is misogynistic. This statement is supported by a wide array of reliable sources; whether they have "proof" or not is immaterial. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If people are misreading it, it's not clear enough. Willhesucceed (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Or they're willfully choosing to read what they want into words that don't actually say what they want. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No, they're reading exactly what the sentence says. The problem is, there's no unified definition of "misogyny". You've linked to the slut-shaming article previously, but notice the quote, "Slut shaming is defined by many...". Right there, you're seeing the article worded to allow for the fact that there's more than a single perspective on what that phrase means. Further, that article goes on to maintain neutrality with phrasing such as "accepted codes of sexual conduct", which is broad, accurate, and sensible, because the definition of "accepted codes of conduct" can vary wildly by context and community. The article does not say, "slut shaming is about ingrained misogyny" as this article does for Gamer Gate. Look at the slut-shaming article - seriously look at it. The headers are neutral and practical. "Overview", "In Literature", "In the Media", "Attempts to Stop the Practice". Nowhere in that article are headers like "Role of Misogyny" being used, because "misogyny" is a charged word with no clear definition and its use is not informative. Using a header like "Role of Misogyny and Anti-Feminism" and opening the article by saying "This debate is about ingrained misogyny" can not only be interpreted differently by a variety of readers, but it's also rather pejorative. YellowSandals (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The aspects of misogyny, sexism, and anti-feminism have been brought up by pretty much everyone out there other than the people Gamergate defines as "not biased" which his shorthand for "totally biased in our favor". Gamergate has been defined by these words consistently but you are still all going #NotAllGamergaters when being confronted with this fact.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

And there has been a consistently prevailing opinion that Hitler was evil, but yet his article describes him as "an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party" because this is a factual assessment. You can't quantify evil and the perception of what evil is does vary by individual. Just like the word "evil", the word "misogyny" could mean numerous things depending on the perspective of the individual reader, and "misogyny" is not a word with anything but a negative connotation. When these sources call Gamer Gate "misogynistic", is there any evidence that they've agreed upon a definition for misogyny? I don't think so - and if they have, then Wikipedia should probably document what that agreed definition is so that the readers know. Otherwise, the article may as well open by saying "Gamer Gate is a controversy concerning ingrained evil within the industry". These words are just pejorative and defined by opinion. It would be better to say that Gamer Gate is a controversy concerned with gender politics, because that's broader, neutral, and conveys that mileage varies within the debate. YellowSandals (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I can't continue a conversation where the concept of "Hitler was not evil" is brought up as a means to say "Gamergate is not misogynistic".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ryulong that the chosen article and issue to draw parallels with here may be a poor one. However, the Hitler article does indeed make mention that many historians and other parties consider the Nazi regime as well as Hitler himself to be evil. However, while I'm no expert, 'evil' is a far more broadly defined category that is also based upon moral implications and therefore far more subjective. Misogyny on the other hand has a much more concise definition, including mandated by law and policy, giving precedence. Additionally, I'm sure if more professional works defining Hitler as evil existed, especially as in the proportions present for Gamergate, it would be more heavily noted on that article per WP:DUE. More pertinent though is that considering that I think I can safely say the bulk of publications about Gamergate include pronounced mention of misogyny by name and harassment specifically directed at women due to their gender as well as sexism, and that the article still does use terms including "allegations," "argue" and the like, it's not out of line. The fact is, misogyny, its presence and role in this controversy, and its relationship to the status of Gamergate as a movement or some of its membership/participants, is the most prominent feature and theme present in the media. AnyyVen (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, would you agree that some people think misogyny is a form of evil? Look, I'm sorry to bring up Hitler because I know it's a joke doing so on the internet, but everyone knows who he is, which is why he's so culturally relevant. The important question, Ryūlóng, is: what is the definition of misogyny being used in these debates? Because the definition varies. Everybody knows what gender politics is, but one person's misogyny may be another person's traditional values. "Misogynistic" is not any more an objective adjective than "evil", and it would be in poor taste to open a Wikipedia article by describing something as "concerned with ingrained, ongoing evil". YellowSandals (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies if you're asking Ryulong in specific. I think it's spurious to assert one way or the other if "some people" think misogyny is a "form of evil," because of the ill definitions and broad speculation as to "some people" and what exactly evil is, let alone a form of it. I'm gathering what you may be trying to get at is that by asserting an entity is misogynistic, it is, or will lead to the belief it is also/therefore "evil?" This is all extremely subjective. The issue here is that it isn't Wikipedia proposing that Gamergate is or is not misogynist, but rather reporting what secondary sources are arguing or alleging it is, so the argument is moot. On a more personal note, the topics they're relating in regards to the alleged misogyny - rape threats, death threats, bomb threats [at least] primarily against women - can hardly be construed as mistaking someone's "traditional values." AnyyVen (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I mean, consider this as a revision. "It concerns gender politics in the gaming community and journalistic ethics in the online gaming press - particularly conflicts of interest between video game journalists and developers. The movement itself has been widely criticized as misogynistic due to ongoing hostility towards female developers and game critics."

This way your opening statement is factual, not using charged language, but it still includes the prevailing opinion expressed by the available sources. In this way, Wikipedia is not siding with the prevailing opinion by stating Gamer Gate is misogynistic, but simply stating that a core issue is gender politics, particularly criticisms regarding misogyny. It still conveys the exact same information, but without the bias. YellowSandals (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that most sources don't allege the issue is gender politics, they allege it is misogyny, literally, by name, and often directly in the headline. It would be a misrepresentation to state otherwise, and an unwarranted interpretation on the article's part to infer that gender politics and misogyny are the same thing. I can't even find mention of "gender politics" on the misogyny page, so I do not think it is a safe assumption to equate the two. AnyyVen (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. I feel like this is going nowhere. The identity politics article describes identity politics as politics shaped by culture or gender and so on. I feel like most articles have been explicitly referring to gamer culture and the identity politics of being a gamer. The politics of being a female gamer. I can't swallow this. You can't be telling me that it's not identity politics just because the prevailing opinion is that Gamer Gate is "misogynistic". If the reporting on this is really so ridiculously one-sided that it shanghais Wikipedia into totally lacking neutrality, then delete the article. You can fix the wording by making the change I propose, even by using the term "identity politics" instead of "gender politics". It's what the debate is about! The sources are actively discussing Gamer Gate as an issue of identity politics. YellowSandals (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are founded on the principle of reliable secondary sources. This effectively restricts the material that can be used as citations to those that, by consensus, will generally be the most reputable and accurate, with general hallmarks of professional peer review and an assumed degree of expertise. Even if the reporting is one-sided, Wikipedia cannot conduct original research to counter the mainstream opinion. Therefore, to write the article in such a way as to cast doubt on or interpret the mainstream opinion without reliable sources is an implication of better certitude than those sources. I understand that the definition of the controversy may differ for some individuals, especially those in support of it, but unfortunately, at least at this time, that is not what the public at large believes according to mainstream sources. That's a public relations issue. As far as deleting the article, that would be biased by omission in the sense it is ignoring that by and large, mainstream sources are reporting that Gamergate has issues of misogyny. This argument is problematic in the sense that your suggestion is that if the article isn't "fixed" with your suggestions, the alternative is to delete it, which is rather all-or-nothing. Instead, I suggest finding these sources that state the issue is identity politics (and do so without interpretation), see the weighting this argument is given in respect to the accusations and implications of misogyny, and offer an introduction reflecting these weightings. AnyyVen (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems that you're arguing that Wikipedia has to choose a side because the more reliable sources chose a side. Gamer Gate can't be identity politics because the press is saying it's "misogynistic", so therefore Wikipedia must call Gamer Gate "misogynistic". Open and shut case. No politics here. YellowSandals (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia cannot present novel material. Unless reliable sources begin referring to the subject as "identity politics", the English Wikipedia cannot present it as such. The English Wikipedia presents the Gamergate controversy as one about misogyny and sexism in gamer culture, and the movement's desire for greater ethics in journalism, which is seen as a thinly veiled cover for the inherent misogyny that spawned it and the desire to remove cultural criticism and culturally relevant topics from video games.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Which reliable sources are saying that Gamer Gate has nothing to do with the gamer identity. They're all saying it's about the gamer identity and culture. The gamer identity is the core of the controversy. You - you're just conveniently ignoring anything you don't like so that the article has to stay biased. YellowSandals (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I was mistaken in omitting the concept of the expanded inclusivity of who is a gamer that those in Gamergate also want to avoid, which I'm assuming is the "Gamer is dead" articles that everyone's panties are in a twist over. But this does not mean I am biased. Remember to always assume good faith.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

YellowSandals, you were the first to suggest that sources are referring to "identity politics," so unfortunately the burden of proof lies on you to affirm this through sources deemed reliable. If this is indeed as widespread as the claims on misogyny, it should be trivial. Wikipedia is as much at the mercy of the media regarding who, what or why Gamergate is as it is at the mercy of the mainstream opinion on whether the earth is round, or whether bigfoot is a transdimensional alien being. It is not Wikipedia's place to affirm what the truth is nor to interpret the works of others. If most reliable sources state that Gamergate is awash in misogyny, how can Wikipedia reasonably argue otherwise without conducting original research? This isn't case closed, it's a matter of asking you to provide evidence for your case. AnyyVen (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

A lot of articles are discussing the issue as one of shifting demographics and the way it's impacting the gaming culture. One reference being used discusses this. "A new study from the Entertainment Software Association found that adult women are the largest demographic of gamers. As women begin to play a bigger role in the gaming community, many are calling #GamerGate a silencing tactic."

Arbitrary break 3

That's just about the demographic shift, but these articles are discussing who is a gamer and how the handling of these demographics is a core of the issue. Somner's criticism concerns how the data is being used, stating that women are gaming now but gravitate towards separate genres. Are we required to find an article that explicitly uses the phrase "identity politics" to the exact letter? I mean, look, this is already in the Wiki article: "Other topics of debate have included perceived changes or threats to the "gamer" identity as a result of the ongoing maturation and diversification of the gaming industry."

How can the wiki say that the debates involve the gamer identity, but then go on to say that Gamer Gate has nothing to do with the gamer identity or the politics thereof? YellowSandals (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

How many articles state gamergate is misogynistic, demonstrates misogyny, is affiliated with it or emulates it? How many bring up the topic of the gamer identity? This is the basis of due weighting. If 99 articles say A, it's not reasonable to present 1 and say it's actually B. Depending on how much mention a topic gets determines if it gets a few words, a sentence, a paragraph, an entire section, and therefore reasonably also affiliated with the inherent definition. I don't see where it goes on to say it has nothing to do with the gamer identity; what I do see is that it has stated, somewhere in its body, that this issue has been brought up or debated. If it has more widescale coverage than what is being suggested in the article, please provide this documentation to support your position, as I'm sure support for the definition of misogyny will be provided if it hasn't already. As far as literally stating the term "gamer identity," realize that you're arguing against the use of the term misogyny, despite the fact that exact term appears in nearly every article on the topic.

Additionally, the current introduction says "concerns ingrained issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community." I realize this is outdated and other proposed changes have been given. What I wish to draw attention to is that it is stated concerns ingrained issues in the community, not that Gamergate is a misogynistic movement, nor that gamers are misogynists. For all that can be taken from this introduction (and even what I thought when first reading it), Gamergate could be a reaction to and/or movement against this issues. The exact relationship between the supporters of Gamergate and accusations of misogyny is defined and made clear throughout the narrative provided by the article rather than by the introduction.

Rest assured I'm not trying to tell you off nor dissuade you. Rather, I'm saying that you very likely going to need all your ducks in a row to affect a change like that. AnyyVen (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I would also encourage YellowSandals or others to read our articles on varieties of criticism and possibly some specific forms of criticism, such as art criticism or literary criticism. These fields do have their scholars and journals (many of them even peer-reviewed) and theories, but they're not sciences in the sense that you're using it. Until supercomputers learn aesthetics and semiotics and can perform not only word counts but concept counts of millions of works of art, criticism in general will lack the methodological rigor to satisfy everyone. Until then, we have people trained to read or watch or play and comment on what they've experienced: critics. Our policies on fringe theories and pseudoscience mostly apply to actual sciences—like "alternative" gravity theorists, as you said—but they do also apply in situations where people question the official narrative, such as with moon landing conspiracy theories. The "official narrative", of course, comes from reliable sources, and that includes scholarship and news organizations. Woodroar (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The evidence for this is clearly a lot weaker than the moon landing. The moon landing has samples, photos, and experiments can easily be done today to show mirrors have been placed on the moon. How is the evidence for the official naritive nearly this strong on GamerGate? Halfhat (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the overwhelming majority of reliable sources portray the GamerGate movement in a certain way. For Wikipedia's purposes, that is the reality we present. Woodroar (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

So Wikipedia will present gamergate as a completely negative movement based on main-stream media portrayal? There is nothing truth-like in that whatsoever. If Wikipedia had any scruples they would go to primary sources(Twitter) and do the proper research on the thing and not cheap out by saying that the New York Times is an unbiased source of what GamerGate is.

User:SmoledMan 20:23, 21 October 2014(UTC)

Wikipedia's articles are based on content that can be verified in reliable sources and not original research into matters.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Since the media is the target of the GamerGate controversy, they can't be seen as a reliable source as they have an interest in labelling GamerGate as "evil".—Awaker81 21:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

A reliable source does not become unreliable merely because accusations are laid against it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding that particular topic, yes it does. It's completely biased since it is the focus of the accusations. Using Op-Eds from "reliable" publications like Vox that are the target (through Polygon) makes no sense. The whole point of GamerGate is journalistic ethics and you are using the ones they are accusing, as "reliable" and unequivocally ethical. Using your logic of course the article will end up one sided, your main premise is that GamerGate is wrong. Awaker81 (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Except Gamergate has uncovered absolutely no violations of ethics in journalism. They harangued one website over their original concern about Zoe Quinn's Depression Quest and her personal relationship to freelance writer Nathan Grayson only for the website to come to the conclusion that because no review for that video game exists and because their romantic relationship began after Grayson wrote the only article that even mentions her or her game, that the concerns laid out by Gamergate were non-existant and unfounded. Every other claim Gamergate has against people is because of the publications criticizing them written after the movement began. There has been no evidence of collusion between the authors of the various "Gamers are dead" pieces. The only things happening in GamesJournoPros over Gamergate were discussions on how to deal with Gamergaters congregating in their forums and comments sections to use them to discuss the non-existant "sex scandal". It has focused all of its attention on indie developers who have no power and alleged that any support via crowdfunding automatically taints anything ever written about that game when any crowdfunding support is a drop in the bucket compared to the money AAA publishers can drop to send a bunch of writers for IGN or wherever to Hawaii for a Zombie Island 2 promo party. Gamergate has accomplished nothing it claims it set out to. Instead it has made at least two women quit video games journalism over the harassment they received, made at least one person give up developing video games ever again, bombard companies with vague complaints to get them to pull support from their newly invented enemies, forced at least three women out of their homes out of fear for their lives, donated thousands of dollars in spite to ensure that their 2d puppet/collective girlfriend gets immortalized, and garner the support of people far left and people far right who don't care about their core beliefs about ethics in games journalism and instead are using Gamergate to their own advantage. We should not throw out or discourage use of sources just because they have butted heads with the Gamergate movement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 4

I apologize for breaking up this discussion here, but it seems it is something that has been hashed over time and time again with no real results.

I just read through the article as it stands, and while I am not going to get into an argument about who is right or wrong, the article does have some clear issues. Let's see what we can do to make this article less controversial and/or biased.

1. The lede is not that bad, although why we have "ingrained" sourced to an opinion piece is odd. I suggest either finding a proper reference/paper concerning sexism and/or misogyny in the gaming community or remove it.

2. Backlash and social media campaign: The initial part of this section is very confusing, and it was not easy to grasp where the source came from most of the statements here. I gather some of it is from Erik Kain's Forbes article, and if so, it is misrepresented. The source claims "Moderators on forums at reddit and 4chan deleted posts and comments related to the Quinn controversy.", so "some websites" is simply wrong. Are there more websites that have been deleting posts and comment? Why don't we have sources for this? Please don't get creative with the references.

3. Role of misogyny and antifeminism: We have two separate sections bringing up the role of misogyny here. I suggest merging "Attacks on women" and "Presence of misogyny and inclusiveness", with a slight rewrite to make it fit better. "Self-policing" should be a good fit to go after this. The other paragraphs could probably stay as they are.

4. Legitimacy of Gamergate's concerns: This sections needs serious cleanup. The first paragraph, source to an opinion piece by Leigh Alexander, is not supporting the "Legitimacy of Gamergate's concerns", and should be moved or removed. The Zoe Quinn reference should be rewritten instead of being a hanger-on to the Leigh Alexander-piece.

The most significant of the paragraphs here seems to be that there was actual action taken by several websites in response to this controversy, so I suggest moving that up to the top, rewriting it as background to the other (again!) opinion pieces in support of Gamergate's legitimacy.

Now, I don't have too much time to go into more details on what could be restructed, changed and/or rewritten, but I think this would be a good first start. I could take the time to draft a new version of the suggested sections, if people agree.

Cyrenbyren (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Problem With Using (strictly) Secondary Sources

Has the attention paid to gamergate by reputable secondary sources been a part of the public discussion on gamergate? If so, the secondary sources we're using, while reputable as secondary sources per se, are primary sources for the gamergate controversy. This article is ostensibly about that controversy, not gamergate itself. I suspect a lot of the alleged neutrality issues could be resolved if we used discussion of the coverage of gamergate (ie, meta-analysis) as a source tertiary to gamergate itself. The challenge then is finding reputable tertiary coverage. Quodfui (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There actually is very little primary sourcing for this, as nearly every story, even mainstream, has thrown their opinion in while weighing on the facts. There might be a couple tertiary articles (and that's what we are trying to write too) but even the tertiary articles that try to summarize events include their own opinions. That why we are looking to use more fully independent secodnary sources (mainstream news) to provide sourcing instead of dependent (VG-related) ones. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I would have no problem with using opinionated but reputable sources if this were an article on gamergate. Sources that are secondary commentary on gamergate are a part of the gamergate controversy, so to source from them in an article on the gamergate controversy is to use them as a primary source on the controversy. It's like if we cited CNN news reports on the Malaysian Airlines crash in an article on media reactions to the Malaysian Airlines crash. The CNN report is a secondary source when used to talk about the Malaysian Airlines crash, but not when talking about reactions to that crash. If this article is in fact about secondary reactions to use of the gamergate hashtag, it seems inappropriate to cite secondary reactions to the use of the gamergate hashtag. It's actually rather an easy problem to solve - just remove "controversy" from the title. Quodfui (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I mean, I ended up here because I was trying to figure out what some posts my friends made on facebook were about. As it stands, the article reads like it's about both the hashtag and the controversy, so a renamed article would be no less germane. Quodfui (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

We can't remove "Controversy" as "gamergate" is an actual scientific term for a type of ant. (see gamergate). --MASEM (t) 01:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

We could make it GamerGate (Controversy). But I think that could be worse Halfhat (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It previously was GamerGate until CamelCase wasn't enough to differentiate it from the ant.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow any of the logic here. Protonk (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe the argument is: "A source that says 'ABC happened regarding X' is a secondary source for topic X. A source that says 'ABC happened regarding X, which shows that X is a terrible thing' is additionally a primary source for the controversy over X, as it is an original statement contributing to the controversy." I do agree that it may be useful to separate GamerGate (Hashtag) and GamerGate (Controversy), but I don't see there being enough content to support entirely different articles. That separation would mean preferring sources secondary (or tertiary) to the involved parties to define the facts of GamerGate, then preferring sources secondary to the media flap over it to get into the controversy. I think we're going to find precious few of the latter at this stage in history.TuxedoMonkey (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Photo change

Can we get the photo of Quinn changed now?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Any suggested replacements? Kaldari (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Anything different found in commons:Category:Zoe Quinn.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Naah, its fine as it is. Furthermore i will suggest to not be in direct contact with ZQ in social media. She is not allowed to decide what picture to use on Wikipedia. --Torga (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

What is your problem?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, i am not the one trying to purge the users i do not like. --Torga (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you think if I was getting my way at all you'd still be on this page? Now answer my question below on this photo.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Your personal dislike of Zoe Quinn (as evidenced by rev-deleted edits to that page) has no bearing on making improvements to the article. You are certainly not allowed to decide that we won't use a better picture of Zoe Quinn out of simple spite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This article has much bigger problems, it seems odd how much focus there is on this. Halfhat (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Its because thats what ZQ wants, and some wiki-editors have been in direct contact with her on social media, thats where the pictures on her personal wiki-page comes from. --Torga (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's because it's a shit photo of her. They're all terrible because none of them are a plain portrait but why does it matter to you that one of the ones she gave permission to the Wikimedia Commons to host were for the sole purpose of providing a new photograph for the press to use rather than the one where she's at the games conference that she has expressed dislike over? Changing the photo should not have this much conversation because changing it to something different changes the narrative or whatever nonsense reason you're giving now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, she has a dislike for it? Lets just ask her what she wants to remove from the article? Is there any words or quotes that she wants changed also?--Torga (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. Because that one photo was the only free photo of her on the Internet, as far as I am aware she expressed dismay at the fact that it was the only photo that kept being used by the press so Hahnchen reached out to her on Reddit and said that she could provide different photos for people to use for free and that's how we ended up with the other two even if they're not the best for any god damn encyclopedic article. Now stop taking shit out of context and just tell me why File:Zoe Quinn - GDC 2014.jpg is a better photo to use than File:Zoe Quinn Car 2014.jpg.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the first is better, look can we just have a vote or something then move on, this article could do with massive work, this seems like a non-issue Halfhat (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It certainly wouldn't be an issue if the article wasn't fully protected unless someone actually felt the need to edit war to keep the Game Devs Awards photo in over the ones uploaded with permission of the subject.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

One of the editors....contacted..ZQ.... directly to ask her about how she wanted this page to look like? --Torga (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you see me seeing that at all? No. We wanted better photos across the project. Zoe Quinn happened to complain about File:Zoe Quinn - GDC 2014.jpg because it was constantly used by every single news outlet that didn't feel like paying anyone anything. Hahnchen sent a message to Zoe Quinn (don't use "ZQ" this isn't KotakuInAction) saying that if she provided images for free to the Wikimedia Commons, it would mean that different photos would be used in the press to depict her. We just so happen to be able to use those photos on Wikipedia because we regularly ask article subjects to provide free photos for us to use. Now why is the old photo better than any of the new ones?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's very standard for biographical subjects to supply their own free-use photos of themselves. See WP:AUTOPROB: If the article about you has no photo, or you can supply a better one, feel free to contribute one under a suitable free content license. Zoe Quinn said she didn't like the photo of her, it wasn't a particularly good one, she agreed to supply a better one and here we are. There is a consensus that the photo she supplied is higher-quality and more suited to a biography than the previously-available free-use photo. The fact that you don't like Zoe Quinn does not permit you to reject an article improvement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

And the article about her has changed the picture. This article is NOT about her. The current picture is better because it visualise her identity better. You can see the game dev sign in the background and in her professional enviroment. --Torga (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

What does it matter that this isn't her biography? We have better photos now. One that says "Game Developers Choice Awards" in the background doesn't say jack squat about her identity, and neither does a photo where she's drinking beer say much about her professional environment. She is at a glorified party and it's not a very good photo. We can change it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that changing the picture of her does not improve the article, nor that any of the pictures available are superior in context than the one currently used, regardless of motivation or the person suggesting the change, real or imagined. It is a centered, near 3/4 frontal body shot at high resolution in a reasonably suitable setting. AnyyVen (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Changing it is fine. I wouldn't use File:Zoe_Quinn_Camera_2014.jpg though since nearly her entire face is obscured. Muscat Hoe (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with changing the photo. Kirothereaper (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, the camera photo is the best one of the bunch despite obscuring her face. Even the other one she released seems a bit unflattering to me. None of these photos are very good, though. Perhaps someone can ask if she has a better photo she can release on a free license.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

We had this discussion before Ryulong and you know it, your photo suggested is of extremely unprofessional quality for an Encyclopedia, probably taken with a webcam, by herself, suggested by her. The current photo is at a GAMING event, the topic she's most associated with, of good quality and she's casually smiling and not making faces. As someone has said, maybe next time ask her if she's happy with the actual content of the article and maybe let's change that too Loganmac (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

We have better quality photos now, particularly those that the subject prefers (not because it makes her look even better). Now stop it with this garbage that this is changing the article in her favor. That is a baseless accusation. When the article protection is lifted I'm changing the photo anyway. If ther's an edit war over retaining the one that is of poor quality and is actively disliked by the subject of the photo (as it was the only free photo that got disseminated throughout the Internet when news agencies didn't want to shell out any money to Getty) then we can change it. Enough of this shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Adobe pulled from Gawker

Mary Sue, The Verge, Ars Technica, Adland, BoingBoing, Frisky, Recode

It wasn't advertising with them, but Gawker was using its logo anyway, so Adobe asked them to pull it.Willhesucceed (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop making new threads on these things.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Why? Willhesucceed (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Preferably keep it in one thread Retartist (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Each article I've posted is related to a specific aspect of this. Some politics, others business, others ideology, etc. I think it's better to put them in their own threads so they don't get lost. It also helps when new sources arise; then, I can just link to the old thread that's been archived instead of having to search through the now 100+ articles. Willhesucceed (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You could still keep it all in one thread so they don't get archived individually.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As you can see, I've collected all Adobe articles in this thread only. Willhesucceed (talk) 11:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Your work is appreciated pay no attention, he just wants you out Loganmac (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You keep your accusations of bad faith out of this. Willhesucceed, throughout this article's protection you have done nothing but link to various news articles that discuss something in regards to Gamergate without providing any sort of suggestion as to what specifically should be incorporated. This isn't Reddit where you just post a link and then people comment on it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The Dish

Andrew Sullivan blogged his view on The Dish today comparing the "Gamers are dead" meme to the loss of gay culture and addressing identity politics. I thought it was pretty balanced. It's available here: [23]. Use it or not. It's up to the community. -Thibbs (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting article, but it's WP:SPS, probably best to avoid it unless a secondary source picks it up. Strongjam (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Felicia Day - Another victim needs to be added to article - Also more sources for claims of misogyny

GamerGate has another victims: Felicia Day.

Sources:

• The Guardian - "Felicia Day's public details put online after she described Gamergate fears" Also says the movement is being called "anti-woman"
• CS Monitor - Gamergate: What Felicia Day says about misogynistic cyberbullyingAnother RS calling GamerGate misogynistic
• TIME - Felicia Day Writes About #GamerGate, Gets Information Hacked "Though #GamerGaters claim that they are policing ethics in gaming journalism, a small but loud subset of the group has lobbed misogynistic threats at women who play, create and critique games, some even making threats of murder and rape."
• ThinkProgress - "Actress Felicia Day Opens Up About GamerGate Fears, Has Her Private Details Exposed Minutes Later" Weakest source, but still RS

Article currently fully protected. Will need to be added after that expires. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The Time article is new, but this is addressed in the #Actual discussion on content to add thread I started earlier.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for missing that. The walls of text are hard to slog through. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess yesterday when you said you were done you meant 'for the day' or 'with the noticeboard' then? Ranze (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a forum, if you have a problem with another editor take it to their talk page or WP:ANI. Please keep focused on the article. Strongjam (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Time states that the group that is misogynystic/sending threats is a small subset, that must be included in the article. CS Monitor is editorial, thinkprogress is a bit biased for an RS Skrelk (talk) 05:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It's minimal and they're the only publication, albeit the biggest publication, to make this statement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It's by far the most reputable source, it basically states the obvious, and still you fight to suppress the fact that the harassers are a minority. Why?—Awaker81 10:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You can still write a largely neutral article from largely biased sources. The most important things is stuff like keeping out overly emotive language. Halfhat (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The Christian Science Monitor article isn't an op-ed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Skrelk: See WP:BIASED. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 14:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, I'm not clear on the politics here, but are you the admin who is presiding over this article and ultimately deciding what changes to make? Thus far, I note that, because "due weight", you would like to establish that GamerGate is misogynistic, solely to blame for their misogyny, and also responsible as a group. You would like to convey these things as facts, written in Wikipedia's voice. Using other articles to establish that some of these assertions are actually opinions in dispute with other perspectives is "bias". Is this a fairly straightforward assessment of the situation? YellowSandals (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Not to bring up yet another claim that everything is "due weight". I'm hearing time and again that the sheer number of articles calling GamerGate "misogynist" trumps any chance to neutrally analyze the subject beyond that slander. I understand. I'd just like a clarification on your stance, here. YellowSandals (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@YellowSandals: You can answer that first question yourself. Also, Wikipedia is a tertiary sources that reflects reliable sources. What is said in Wikipedia's voice must reflect those accurately. Reliable sources call GamerGate misogynistic, so must we. I think WP:TRUTH is a good essay here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It isn't slander if it's true. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

We absolutely cannot take that attitude. We know everyone in the press and their brother calls them misogynist and we're going to include that this is how the GGs are seen by the majority of sources, but we cannot presume that anyone involved in GG is misogynist. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I appreciate your continuing work to keep this article from spiraling too far out of control. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You're reading too much into that. Chillax. I don't want the article to say that specific people are misogynist, no. What I am in favor of is reflecting how reliable sources report on the overall "Gamergate" movement, and right now the sources are generally on the side of "it is misogynist", and not the "but ethic" sidebar. Our sandal-clad SPA said above "I'm hearing time and again that the sheer number of articles calling GamerGate "misogynist" trumps any chance to neutrally analyze the subject beyond that slander", and I was specifically rebutting the claim that such statements are slanderous. Tarc (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the way this article is currently written, and discussion on this page goes, is that the line between fact and what the majority of sources claim is fact is not well made, and we really need to be careful on this in any further rewrites and additions; We (as WP editors) can't say GG is misogynist, but we can say that GG is seen as misogynist by nearly every press source. It is typically down to a matter of word choice, but that's what we have to be very careful of, and the statement above is an example of something that doesn't reflect the care we need to take. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia editing and if I knew where to look to understand the exact bureaucracy of altering a protected article once a consensus is made, I would have looked it up instead of asking you. I'm aware that other admins are involved with this page, however - I'm just not sure how it works and I saw that you made an arbitration previously. I do also note that your opinion is that "scholars" have declared that "GamerGate is intrinsically misogynist". I'm not entirely sure which scholars you're referring to, since the controversy has been mainly contained to periodicals and those opinions are expressed by journalists. If you're expanding into social models that claim all of society at large is misogynistic, I encourage you to check Wikipedia's article on scientific modelling. To quote from that page, "despite their inherent falsity, they are nevertheless extremely useful."

The emphasis in bold is mine. It's important to remember that, just because a model exists for a subject like misogyny, that does not make a claim of misogyny strictly accurate or factual. It is possible to report statistical data or specific findings, but all models have flaws and many subjects of analysis deviate from those models. It is of core importance in scholarship to be able to recognize that models are not fully accurate, and it is dangerous and wildly inaccurate to report any modeled data as being without deviation. Even when doing something as mundane as collecting soil samples, the researcher will state where they collected these samples from and attempt to make an assessment of how the actual soil composition of an area may deviate those values expressed by the collected data.

So how is it that these claims of misogyny have somehow escaped this quite scholarly method of explaining where the data has come from and how it was achieved? How is it "due weight" to represent these claims of misogyny as facts to be repeated in Wikipedia's voice, when instead the article should be reporting specifically who is making the claims and why. This article has not been written in a scholarly fashion thus far, and it requires revision. I do not request that undue weight be given to GamerGate's stance, and within my latest suggestion for a revision I make no mention of any of GamerGate's positions what-so-ever. I merely ask for a clinical, neutral approach to structuring this article. YellowSandals (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@YellowSandals: I assume that's directed at me. I didn't mention scholars though. What data are you talking about? This seems non sequitur. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Under an edit request, you responded, "Ryulong is correct that scholars have argued it is intrinsically misogynistic."

But thus far, scholarly articles on GamerGate haven't really emerged. Most of what we're relying on are opinion pieces, with the strongest sources being those from Time and Forbes who are doing secondary reporting, discussing what is being said by Gawker, Kotoku, and other publications directly involved in the controversy. What I'm being critical of is the broad assumption that, just because many journalists are saying that a movement is "disrespectful and ingrained with hatred towards women", that doesn't necessarily make it a factual statement and nor does that mean that misogyny is the reason for GamerGate when a thing is misogynistic based on context. In fact, in most cases, being called misogynistic is considered a slur or a slander.

I'm trying to wrap my head around why a contextually-based insult is being represented as the core of a controversy. Are you using a social model to make this assessment? It's one of the few explanations I can think of. But if you're using a social model, even one developed by scholars, it's important to remember that models are not accurate if the situation deviates from the model's expectations. For that reason, claims of misogyny, even using a scholarly model, still need to be discussed with reference to where and how that assessment is being made. That's why I keep insisting that this article needs to state that the periodicals are making these claims for the reasons they express, rather than simply representing the assertion of these periodicals as foregone conclusions. If the context of GamerGate is being mistaken here, which may very well be true, then GamerGate is deviated from whatever model is used to determine misogyny.

If GamerGate had unified leadership that was directly stating their goals were to hate and disrespect women, then yes, it would be factual to say that misogyny is the core of the controversy. As it is, though, it has been exceedingly difficult to say, objectively, why this controversy came to be continues to be for an extended period. Many sources say they believe the issue is misogyny, but nothing confirms and our sources acknowledge that GamerGate disagrees. YellowSandals (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The "Ryulong is correct that scholars have argued it is intrinsically misogynistic." wasn't about gamergate, but about whether anti-feminism is misogynistic, and this is veering into WP:FORUM territory. Let's try to stay focused on the content of the article, not the closed talk page sections. Strongjam (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry, my mistake. I misread the context of that statement. However, it does still highlight that Occam's razor is not being used to write this article. If, for example, we must assume anti-feminism is also misogynistic for this article to make sense, then the article is clearly not being as concise and direct as it needs to be. The readers needs to be able to grasp what this controversy is about without having a prior understanding of those assumptions or theories placed forth by scholars not directly related to the controversy. Otherwise the article is veering into jargon, which will lead to confusing and misinterpretation, especially if the jargon is a word that means something completely different to the uninitiated. YellowSandals (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

For example, in statistics, "significance" refers to the deviation of data from its expected values. If a statistical set has data with a high deviation, it is considered "not significant". However, to the average person, significance is a word that means "importance", which can sometimes lead to confusion because insignificant data may still seem important to someone who doesn't understand statistical analysis. It's issues like this which may be why I'm even here arguing my stance in the first place. Perhaps I have a completely different understanding of what "anti-feminism" and "misogyny" means because I'm using a layman's interpretation, and if so, it would appear I'm not alone. YellowSandals (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The article describes several instances of women involved, directly or peripherally, with video games and video games journalism being attacked, often in a way that is directly related to them being women, such as several graphic threats of rape, often including their home addresses and telephone numbers, just to get the point across. Several men who have spoken out about this have not received anywhere near this level of abuse, and that includes actor Wil Wheaton (not presently addressed in the article or in reliable sources AFAIK) and former NFL player Chris Kluwe (presently a suggested addition to the article in multiple locations on this page). That has led many observers, both in video games media and in mainstream media, to remark that Gamergate supporters have a streak of misogyny in their midst without acknowledging this or doing the absolute minimum of removing those people from their midst and instead proclaiming "that's not what we're about" and the like. Jesse Singal covered this exquisitely in a post he made on Reddit which later became this piece for New York magazine. Gamergate can say it's about ethics and rooting out corruption in journalism all it wants but without proper leadership, centralization, or manifesto there's nothing the media can do to adequately cover this, and instead look at everything that has been done in the name of "Gamergate" and see attacks on women for being women with opinions and have no power other than a lot of followers on Twitter, a complete abhorrence to video games that go outside the norm and focus on more contemporary topics of mental illness and sexuality when these are drops in the bucket compared to how much money games like Destiny make on release, and nothing concrete as to what they have accomplished other than make several video game news websites kowtow and add things on crowdfunding to their regulations for writers.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Also take a look at my response to Awaker81 under "Role of misogyny and antifeminism," above. AnyyVen (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

But we have no sources saying that GamerGate confirms, "Yes, this is about hating women". We have sources saying it's really hard to understand what GamerGate wants because everyone is saying different things. We have sources speculating on what GamerGate appears to think it's doing. Numerous sources say they think the issue is misogyny, but they can only state that they think that's what the issue is. If you're using inferences to arrive at the conclusion that GamerGate is, factually speaking, about the hatred of women, then you're doing primary reporting. YellowSandals (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not the point here. The point is that while #GamerGate supporters can go on and on about how "that's not what we're about, ignore those people" but that does not stop people on the outside looking in seeing all of the misogynistic acts done obstensibly in the name of #GamerGate and coming to the rightful conclusion that #GamerGate is in part misogynistic. There is no central person in #GamerGate to go "We are not about misogyny". Read Jesse Singal's piece. He investigated #GamerGate as best as he could, going to r/KotakuInAction and 8chan to see if the people telling him "it's not about misogyny, we want to talk about ethics" and found thread after thread spending all of their time and energy into talking about Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, and Anita Sarkeesian. When there's no leader or decided goal, there's no one to make a definitive statement on matters. So stop going on and on about "these people only think it's about misogyny and #GamerGate has never said we hate women". That is not going to change in this article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to be so difficult about this, but understanding what the core of this controversy is about happens to be part of the problem, and perpetuating it as a moral crusade is likely only maintaining the lifespan of an ugly mob battle. The dispute involves accusations of misogyny as a core element, but within our sources we see GamerGate disputes the claims. Harassment is also a core issue and we have factual accounts we can and should report about there, but as for the motives, we have conflicting accounts and speculation. We're ascribing motives to a group that has expressed unclear motives - just a mob, basically, with each individual in it for their own reasons. It's appropriate to give great depth to the moral accusations being laid against GamerGate and to explain why they are being made, but no secondary source can confirm the strict veracity of those claims, so it's inappropriate to establish those claims as being facts which we can state in Wikipedia's voice. YellowSandals (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Drop the stick, the article does not ascribe motives, it just says misogyny is involved. This accurately reflects reliable sources. If you have specific wording in the article that you feel violates WP:SYNTH and ascribes motive where inappropriate then start a section clearly outlining what, specifically, needs to change, and why. Referencing WP:POLICY where appropriate. We've veered far enough off topic in this section. Strongjam (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Under synth, here's an example: "The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world."

Compare to: "GamerGate says it is not about misogyny, but since it began is has harassed numerous women."

This article opens by stating the dispute "concerns misogyny" and it includes headers specifically referring to misogyny and anti-feminism. Although the material below said header goes on at some points to criticize the data being used to draw this conclusion, the way the article is worded and organized implies misogyny and anti-feminism as an established, factual basis for aspects of this controversy. Could we even just change the opener to say "concerns of misogyny"? As in, "It involves concerns of ingrained[1] sexism and misogyny in the gaming community, specifically revolving around the ongoing harassment of several female game developers and critics."

But then do include a section establishing that the periodicals of concern acknowledge the dispute from GamerGate, though they dismiss them. I am trying to find a compromise here - the wording in this article is very sloppy and implies things it shouldn't, and there is a great deal of resistance towards changing it. I feel like I'm not carrying the stick when I'm the one who keeps trying different tactical approaches to this issue, and the dispute against what I'm doing is a virtual unfaltering brick wall. YellowSandals (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind: the issues of misogyny as it relates to GG existed before GG; there are sources we have that say that the industry knows fully well it has unintentionally fostered a misogynistic attitude (see, for example, the issues of getting female game devs, and irregardless of her opinions, Anita's are well-respected by game devs as "oh crap, that's our fault that looks that way"), which may or may not be connected to the larger "misogynistic" nature of the Internet at large (again, other sources), but as a result, the actions of GG in a area that has known to be misogynistic is being considered misogynistic by sources. So it is relevant to understand that we are not speaking solely to the misogyny that is implied to the gamers, but to the industry (devs, pubs, gamers) as a whole for some time. --MASEM (t) 18:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's the thing YellowSandals. WP:SYN only covers actions taken by Wikipedia users and not the sources themselves. Sources describe misogyny as an aspect of #GamerGate and Wikipedia repeats that same description. The #GamerGate movement can go on and on about how it's not about misogyny and instead about journalistic ethics, as Jesse Singal covers, but that does not stop him and other journalists from seeing the constant attacks on women who aren't even journalists. However, it may be useful to clarify that the misogyny takes the form of the harassment as per your suggestion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You really aren't going to budge. No matter how many concessions I make, you're going to continue to hold out for the whole pie. It seems like you honestly could care less what people think of the article or about how useful it is. You've decided on a strictly-worded, slanting narrative and you want the article to follow it or no dice. YellowSandals (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Because you are asking for things that cannot be dealt with or that people do not agree with. I'm just the only one actively responding to you. You have alleged that Wikipedia users are violating WP:SYN when that is not the case and I've given sources that point out that discrepancy that you are comparing to the wording at WP:SYN. Wikipedia is not creating the novel connection that "Gamergate says it is not about misogyny but people are attacking women". That is what the sources are saying. That is what people are observing on their own and reporting on it and we are using those reports for the article. You claim that you are here to produce a neutral article, claiming that you have experience on other projects, when you have done nothing but put forward suggestion after suggestion to skew the article in favor of the Gamergate movement, constantly alleging that it slanders the very thing you say the article is covering, when this article is not about the Gamergate movement. It is about the controversy that the movement is a part of.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggested this: "It involves concerns of ingrained[1] sexism and misogyny in the gaming community, specifically revolving around the ongoing harassment of several female game developers and critics." Just in case you missed it.

You are so wrapped up in this opinion of this controversy that you honestly look at this proposed re-write and honestly think it's unfairly biased in favor of GamerGate. For no other reason than because it says "It involves concerns of misogyny" instead of "It concerns misogyny". My suggestion doesn't even state anything GamerGate would want to have expressed on their behalf. It removes Wikipedia's voice as well as the details about the gaming press. I am basically handing you a victory with a single word in my favor. "Of". Because I say the controversy involves "concerns of misogyny", I'm biased. Really? Wasn't there a thing you just did that made some admins recommend you take a break from the article? YellowSandals (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

This is just bloody-minded idealism now. If you perceive a GamerGate bias in a proposed change that I suspect will definitely still lead to outcry from the GamerGate side of things because it utterly fails to mention any of their stances, then it's obvious there is no compromise to be had with you. The angle you're playing at is intellectually dishonest, and I agree that you should step down from your involvement with this article. YellowSandals (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

If we can find an article linking some of the prior controversy over the issue of misogyny and how the industry has been involved in this for a while, it might provide some valuable context for GamerGate. YellowSandals (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, in an actually organized section that describes the issue in a clinical fashion, that is. I know as soon as I ask to describe the issue as anything more than "ingrained woman-hating with no rational basis or opposing view", I'm just going to be chastised and shot down. YellowSandals (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

from the CSM article we should include that the gamergate harassment of Day caused twitter to change its anti-abuse policies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

That's really interesting. Do we have a source that says what those changes are? Strongjam (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

"Ms. Williams was driven offline and Twitter swiftly reacted by amending its policies regarding abuse." The portion is referring to Zelda Williams' twitter abuse, unless there is another mention referring to Day that I missed. TuxedoMonkey (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

ah, you are correct, a different group of trolls. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggested Format Revision

Heck with it, I will be WP:BOLD and toss this out there. Refer to the paragraph directly above "Backlash and Social Media Campaign". It makes a broad statement that several sources tie Ms Quinn's harassment to historical perceptions of gamer culture, has a string of sources at the end of that statement, then gives some quotes from those sources to flesh out the idea. I propose that many “salad of opinions” and “low information density” issues could be remedied by applying this style throughout the article, especially the latter parts. Specific example for Social Criticism: “The broadening scope of gaming comment and criticism has been discussed as a factor in the Gamergate controversy and response.” cite cite cite cite quote quote quote If somebody’s intent is to skim the article and get a sense of what’s going on, they can hit the first sentence and move on to the next section. Care needs to be taken in crafting the opening statement given WP’s voice (I avoided "maturing" or "diversifying" as possibly loaded words), but that can also draw a sharp line between WP’s voice and that of commentators. Sticking to a minimum number of salient and non-provocative quotes should also have the effect of keeping a “pile on one side” effect away. TuxedoMonkey (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

dead reference and unnecessary middleman page for reference.

" These statements have been denied by some users of 4chan.[44][41] " reference 41 is 404. 44 simply links to an IRC chat log here http://www.archive.today/Ler4O — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.211.136 (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I read a bit of it and it seems relevant, atleast. Halfhat (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

and the improper use of primary sourcing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

This is 44 http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/137293-Exclusive-Zoe-Quinn-Posts-Chat-Logs-Debunking-GamerGate-4Chan-and-Quinn-Respond and it seems to work. ALso there was a minor typo that prevented 41 http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2014/09/15/derriere-le-gamersgate-un-groupe-antifeministe_4485191_4408996.html from showing up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Another couple of sources that could be useful

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/138165-Video-Game-Sophistry-Harassed-by-GamerGate http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/games/gamers/opinion-gamergate-in-all-its-glory-30690825.html Halfhat (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we work the "Legitimacy of Gamergate's concerns" into the rest of the article?

It seems like the reverse of the criticism section, there's no reason it shouldn't be worked into the whole article, and would make it easier to asses neutrality. Halfhat (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

That last section needs to be revised too, but please lets take this slow. I am presently only adding things that are simple facts that we have gotten clean discussion before, but other parts we should tread very carefully. --MASEM (t) 01:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

And this just popped up on my news search [24]. Definitely going to be useful --MASEM (t) 01:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's just this seems like one of the biggest issues with the article, I don't mean now, but I think it's something that needs work. Halfhat (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Felicia Day doxxing

From the Guardian, she was doxxed after posting a support piece for the antiGG side. (Also gets into the Adobe/Gawker thing) --MASEM (t) 15:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

A bit off topic but I'm somewhat confused as to why the Guardian has given an insane amount of coverage to this Halfhat (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Guardian from my experience tends to be a more tech-savvy paper as well as having readily adopted to the new media model, thus letting them publish more online. But we shouldn't assume that the volume of coverage from a paper that is otherwise sufficiently independent from the video game industry is unreliable or the like (just to stave off those arguments). --MASEM (t) 15:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, I'm yet to see any other of similar magnitude that has done more than a couple covering it. Halfhat (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Was this a serious question? A leading female figure in gaming circles who as subjected to the same misogynist crap that the rest of them have been. This is what the primary narrative of Gamergate is becoming. Tarc (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe Halfhat was refering to the Guardian's overall GG coverage, not to the Day doxxing. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This has been covered by Think Progress too. Chris Kluwe's statement in response may be of note as well. It's also a nicely colorful statement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Per discussions above, it's not at all clear that a think tank is a reasonable source for BLP related content. The Guardian source is a much higher quality source, and sufficient for establishing due weight. aprock (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It mostly repeats the content in the article by The Guardian, and we already include content from a conservative think tank. Why should this liberal one be any different?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't. I would suggest staying away from think tank generated content. They are in the business of persuasion, not reporting. aprock (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This story does not warrant much attention at the moment given the minimal coverage. We could justify a sentence possibly, but even that is probably pushing it a bit. I note with interest that Ryulong is not complaining about Masem posting a link without suggesting content additions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it's because all the shit that happened yesterday made me change my approach. And the story is brand new so it makes sense that there's not that much coverage yet but it's starting to get there now. This seriously only happened within the past couple of hours. Don't dismiss it yet.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and the media are looking at Kluwe's rant (which is much more scathing of proGGers) and seeing not a drop of complains from the proGG side, and drawing the conclusion in their reporting on what the actual purpose of GG is. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

What is also telling is that Kluwe...who made waves a few years ago by calling out sexism and homophobia within the the NFL locker room...hasn't been doxxed and harassed in similar fashion to Day and the others. Tarc (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Not relevant to the article until a robust secondary source speaks to that. aprock (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Primary source; “None of you fucking #gamergate tools tried to dox me, even after I tore you a new one. I’m not even a tough target…Instead, you go after a woman who wrote why your movement concerns her,” and secondary; "Many have pointed to the immediate doxxing received by Day to underscore the differing treatment experienced by men and women who speak out against gamergate." for starters. Cowardly harassers know that even an NFL punter would wipe the floor with them. Tarc (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian is a fine source. Sourcing directly to tweets published in the secondary source is ok, but not to other tweets. aprock (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, nothing from Gawker should be considered generally reliable on this article anymore except for noting the opinions of Gawker or its staff, because they are far from being a third-party in this situation. Not just because of Nathan Grayson or Patricia Hernandez, but because of Leigh Alexander, Sam Biddle, and Max Read. People who are staff for Gawker or regularly write for Gawker are intricately woven into this controversy. Their views are not outside views. As it stands, this story with Felicia Day is basically a footnote or a minor incident. Someone in a comment section posting doxx in a controversy where people's doxx have been getting posted left and right on all sides, sometimes with the same individual doxxing both sides, is not really a huge story and I believe that is reflected in the fact it is getting minimal coverage outside the usual suspects.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian is reporting on it. Just because Gawker is reporting it does not mean it's not a relevant event when it's barely a day old. And, again, the claims that pro-GG people have been doxxed are only anecdotal online and not reported, as far as I am aware. We are not throwing out the biggest video games website from reporting on things because the movement claims they are biased against them when it is their behavior towards the website that hs put them in the precarious situation they caim it exists in.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not about bias, it is about independence. Gawker was never independent of this controversy, but always a subject of it. We would not treat Fox News or MSNBC as reliable sources on their own reporting or on controversies in which they are central subjects and the same goes for Gawker. Should we include mention of Felicia Day it should be a very brief mention of like a sentence, unless sufficient sources arise to present it as something more significant. At the moment this appears to be a flash-in-the-pan incident of minimal relevance to the overall subject.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, that's only because the story dropped less than 12 hours ago. We should include that after she raised criticism about about Gamergate, her alleged personal details were posted soon after. And we should include Chris Kluwe's response on how he was even more critical and vocal than Day but he was seemingly ignored. This is covered by The Guardian. This is covered by the other sources I posted above. There are more and more and more (Gawker, yes, but deal with it) sources covering this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's say this gets reported on a lot, how can it be attributed to GamerGate? A person on a comment section, called Heloise by the way (not even a male name), describes Felicia's address. Responsibility attributed to GamerGate? This is getting crazy, every single "evil" act is now attributed to GamerGate without the minimal fact-checking. Awaker81 06:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Felicia Day writes a post critical of Gamergate and then an hour later someone posts her address in the comments section. Do you honestly think it's not related to Gamergate?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Your sources are not reliable by the way. Complex? An Op-Ed from the Washington Post? It seems everything antiGG becomes automatically reliable. Awaker81 06:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You are picking out two of the things I found in a search 8 hours ago as a means to completely discredit me?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm picking sources you presented as reliable, but aren't. Does that discredit you? Yes, but that's your own fault, next time don't post random sources. —Awaker81 09:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

There's The Guardian, Time, the International Business Times, etc. More than enough sourcing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources only say that the doxxing was made in the context of Gamergate Controversy not that it was made by Gamergate supporters which is what you are implying. Awaker81 09:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

And thus dawns the realization that there is no way to separate or disown anything from an unorganized, anonymous and leaderless "movement" which has no barrier to entry other than the ability to type a hashtag.

The documented history of GamerGate supporters making such attacks is indisputable. When someone writes something anti-GamerGate and is then anonymously attacked because of that writing, it is not a difficult or unreasonable leap to associate that attack with those who would likely disagree or feel wronged by what was written. Making evidence-free conspiracy theory claims that those anonymous attacks are "false flags," "victim playing" or a "hoax" is unconvincing to anyone outside an ideological bubble. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

When it's added, we can be clear that we have no identity of the doxxers, but it came an hour after the GG post, which the press is making the occum's razor conclusion that it was likely GG. We just cannot saying 100% assurance that it was GG at this time. --MASEM (t) 06:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

If the press says it's related to Gamergate then Wikipedia can say it's related Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

If the reliable sources says so, which isn't the case. The Guardian just reports the facts, that she was doxxed after speaking, not that the harasser was a supporter of GG of any other accusation, and this wikipedia article shoudn't imply anymore then the sources reported. Awaker81 09:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The Mary Sue makes the connection and specifically states that someone from the GamerGate movement was responsible. It was literally the second source I read after Gawker, which others have an issue with. Woodroar (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian also makes the connection:

“ The publication of Day’s details is being seen as further strengthening the criticism that Gamergate’s partcipants are pursuing an anti-woman agenda, which has seen female game developers and journalists harassed and threatened, while male critics have been almost untouched. ”

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian only states that publication of the details "is being seen as further strengthening..." it doesn't say it was the act of a gamergate supporter. Awaker81 10:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The connection is implied, but clearly so, and is not original synthesis. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

So now some random contributor on the The Mary Sue is a reputable source? Amazing.... Awaker81 10:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

And now The Washington Post makes it perfectly explicit. Gamergate targets Felicia Day after she expresses fear of being targeted. These intimidation tactics — rape and death threats, publicizing personal information such as addresses and phone numbers, constant harassment on Twitter — have become de rigueur for a movement of gamers, nearly all men, who operate under the auspices of exposing an ethics conspiracy in gaming journalism. In actuality, it is a crusade against feminism, feminist critiques of games and gamer culture, and diversifying said culture. We can stop arguing over the sources now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless they have some source proving it was someone who was pro-gg, wikiedia can't say that it was a pro-gg person who did it, just that it happened after she talked about GG. 75.118.132.58 (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

First I would like to know if these articles are even editorialized. The "reporter" posts in the entertainment section, and her articles are not a shinning example of reporting excelence. I just discovered Renee Zelwegger had a surgery gone wrong.... Awaker8112:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Lol, you're now questioning the editorial integrity of the Washington Post? Yea. I think your stay around here is going to be a bit brief. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm posing a legitimate question. Is that section editorialized? Laugh it off if you want, fine by me. Awaker81 12:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It is under editorial control. "Editorialized" means something else by the way. If you want to take the question up further I'd suggest WP:RSN is a better venue. Strongjam (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Are we drones? We do not state something as fact just because one journalist is not showing due consideration to the uncertain nature of an allegation, even if that journalist writes for the Washington Post. Looking over the coverage, most sources do not even really pay much mind to the doxxing. It is basically a footnote in the articles. Many focus more on what she said and the reaction, which is honestly just more of the same. A prominent woman in gaming could stub her toe then blame it on GamerGate and you would have like ten articles immediately crying misogyny.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

We are not here to second guess The Washington Post. The publications have mentioned the doxxing and its relation to the Gamergate movement. And don't you start victim blaming either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Recognizing that some things have nearly become a "I win" button, that can be used by anonymous people on either side of the discussion (not the victims) to shut down all criticism is not victim blaming, it's a logical acknowledgement of reality. Fact checking is still required before you start accusing a person or group, fact checking is not victim blaming. Here is an example of fact checking in the WP —Awaker81 06:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not really "fact-checking" though — it's not asserting that anything previously published is wrong. It's (properly, and finally) getting some GamerGate supporters to speak on the record, but it doesn't (and isn't written to) "refute" anything previously written in the Washington Post. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say it was refuting previous articles. Here is another one, from yesterday in IB Awaker81 06:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

"Role of misogyny and antifeminism"

change the heading "Role of misogyny and antifeminism" to something more neutral like "Critical Responses" or "Criticism" As they sound more neutral and don't violate WP:BLP by implying that Christina Hoff Sommers and others are misogynists or antifeminists Retartist (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The section is used to contain all critiques on the misogyny and antifeminism seen in the debate, and her refutation belongs under this header. It is not a BLP violation by any stretch of the policy that her presence is a BLP vio when to be honest she has been called antifeminist in the past.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Then "Critical Responses" or "Criticism" could still be viable while being more neutral and saying a similar thing Retartist (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As the person who created that section, I assure you this was not the intent. The section is literally for discussing the "role of misogyny and antifeminism" in the controversy. We could change the heading to "Debate about the role of misogyny and antifeminism" to make it clearer that this is the purpose of that section. I do not feel that is necessary, but it would address your concern.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

 Works for me Retartist (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

 Works for me It's a step in the right direction. Is this how I use this button to also agree with something? YellowSandals (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

 Works for me Willhesucceed (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree Still Criticism sounded better, and I hadn't noticed but the Christina Sommers picture under "role of antifeminism", without stating Sommers is a feminist could lead to people misreading it. Loganmac (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop ignoring all of the discussion that's taken place long before you posted your comments here. Putting all of your {{works for me}} and {{agree}} in a row is not going to change the fact that there's no consensus for Retartist's proposed change and there's no consensus to add "Debate about the" to the section title. There is nothing wrong with including a free photo of Christina Hoff Sommers in the article in the only location she is even vaguely mentioned. People can read her article to discover her personal stances, because it is established that she is critical of third wave feminism and most third wave feminists consider her anti-feminist.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

No, "Role of misogyny and antifeminism" works just fine, seeing how we're talking about the roles of...wait for it...misogynists and anti-feminists. Also, please don't waste admin's time by making controversial protected edit requests, this template should e used for routine maintenance type of things. Tarc (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

>WP:BLP implying that Christina Hoff Sommers is a misogynist or antifeminist Retartist (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

>mfw you don't realize that Sommers has been described as anti-feminist in the past

>mfw I have no face

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Top kek Retartist (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You do not have the slightest idea what "BLP" is, what it applies to and what it does not. Again, do not waste the project's time with the "protected edit request" template for anything but routine, non-controversial edits. Tarc (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content--WP:BLP.

I believe that putting her under this section with this title violates this point here Retartist (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing in the heading or the article text suggests that Sommers is misogynist or anti-feminist. Rather, the heading states that misogyny and anti-feminism play a role in Gamergate... which, as per the reliable sources, they do. There is no claim of guilt by association, biased, malicious or promotional content. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. We need to clarify something. Do you honestly believe the average person wants to be viewed as as a misogynist who is against equal rights for women? Are you seriously assuming it's normal to be associated with misogyny? YellowSandals (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time she is not being associated with misogyny. Just because this article describes the movement itself as misogynistic does not mean that any single person is being called a misogynist and certainly not because one person's photo happens to be in a section discussing the misogyny that has been documented.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact she only appears in the last section, and even gets first mention, which I think is somewhat of a credit that one of the few publicly noted supporters of Gamergate gets first say. I agree that I don't think anyone reading that section would draw the conclusion that she's a misogynist: it says that's she's disagreeing with that accusation being directed at the movement. I think if anything, the statement "disagrees with the criticism" is a little cryptic as to what "criticism" it's specifically referring to. AnyyVen (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Captions need to be short and to the point.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean the caption, I meant the first sentence in the section: "Author and scholar Christina Hoff Sommers disagreed with the criticism leveled at gamers, in a video she released through the American Enterprise Institute." What criticism is she disagreeing with? All criticism, or just the misogynist accusations? Maybe I'm being pedantic but it doesn't seem to flow well. AnyyVen (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think it was part of a larger thought at one point and it was just split off. Or the criticism is described later in the paragraph. It can be fixed/clarified when the protection ends.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP does not protect people or groups from being described in ways they don't like, if those descriptions are reliably-sourced, attributed and given proper weight. That individual people choose to associate themselves with GamerGate does not mean that criticism of GamerGate as a whole can be construed as a personal attack on that person in contravention of BLP.

The lede of the article describes the controversy (remember, this article is about the controversy, not the "group") as involving misogyny and anti-feminism. This is impeccably sourced — there is literally not a single source which claims that misogyny and anti-feminism aren't issues being debated in the controversy. We then have a section heading entitled "Role of misogyny and anti-feminism" which includes the predominant viewpoint that those two things have become associated with GamerGate, to the detriment of any ability to reasonably and dispassionately discuss the hashtag. We also present Sommers' view that there isn't misogyny and Berlatsky's view that misogyny is everywhere, not just in GamerGate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

While the existence of misogyny is a fact the actual weight of the misogynists inside the group is definitely a debatable question, which leads to "the role of misogyny". It's not the same thing having a group where all are misogynist and a group where the minority is misogynist. Why do people try to make this about extremes? Awaker81 12:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to turn this into a forum, or conduct OR, but I think enough responses have at least validated this. I understand your concern and you're certainly not the first nor last to have it: Gamergate says it is about journalistic ethics and condemns the harassment, but almost all reliable secondary sources say this is a sham and the group harbours serious misogynistic issues. Herein lies the issue: almost all secondary sources are talking about misogyny, making that the biggest issue as far as Wikipedia is concerned. As for why, condemnation isn't really a proactive measure is it? And to be honest, look at the two issues here: one is about journalism to do with video games, and the other is women receiving death and rape threats after having their personal information uncovered, not to mention bomb and school massacre threats, regardless of the claim "oh but that's not gamergate." Is it really reasonable to complain the media is giving undue weight to people's lives being threatened versus a liberal bias/conflicts of interest/whatever in video game reporting? This is like complaining to a teacher when someone spreads rumours about your mother, and replying "oh but I never asked him to" when someone claiming to be a friend of yours stabs him in the eye. There's a certain rift in the severity of the issues here: it's called unclean hands. And as wonderful as it is that Gamergate then states it condemns the harassment, there's issues with that. First, it does nothing to stem that activity, which appears to still be occurring. As noted, this is also the issue with open membership and lack of leadership, so who's to say they aren't part of Gamergate when they claim to be? And seriously not helping is the fact that many Gamergaters then immediately begin accusing the victim of false flag operations, which at best looks exceedingly insensitive, and at worst is victim blaming. The same secondary sources that state Gamergate is misogynistic also typically mention all of these facts. It isn't wikipedia trying to lend this slant to the movement: it's the media at large addressing what they see as the most severe issue and what they also see as the failure of Gamergate to appropriately respond and distance itself from this activity. Please don't respond to this accusing me of being "antiGG," because I'm not, nor am I "proGG." I think there are serious issues on both sides and that the whole thing is a mess. I would like to see more legitimate reporting on the activities of those against the movement, because as at least another editor has stated, there is no reason to paint that side as impeccable, but I also don't question the validity of considering violent threats to be more important that video games not being reviewed appropriately.

[edit]In reference to this exactly, GG "isn't in this" - and is unlikely to - to win the war of public opinion. NOTE TO ADMINS: If this violates any WP policy, please remove and notify/warn me immediately. AnyyVen (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

A profoundly backwards suggestion, taking agency for the harassment away from gamergate and leaving it the province of those to criticize. The misogyny is why gamergate has news coverage, it's not solely an aspect of criticism. Protonk (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Reminder that the proposed change is adding the word DEBATE in front of the title of that whole section Retartist (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

"Debate" implies that the question of misogyny is a matter of speculation (Protip; it isn't). Tarc (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The weight of misogyny in the group is definitively a matter of debate, although many people try to spread the idea that it doesn't matter if 0,1% or 100% are misogynists. Protip, it does, since there are also crazy feminists and the whole group isn't reduced to their actions (which is logical and what should be happening with GamerGate) Awaker81 12:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

"The weight of misogyny in the group is definitively a matter of debate...". I'm afraid that it is not. What we have is the weight of reliable sources vs...you, a red-linked single-purpose account with only a dozen edits under his belt, all to this page. I'm pretty comfy going with the former. Tarc (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm certainly not the only one in this page defending a more balanced view, nor do the reliable source say that gamergate supporters are all misogynists, so the "vs me" is unwarranted, not to mention resorting to Ad hominem. Awaker81 12:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Drop the stick, the article does not say "gamergate supporters are all misogynists", both the article and WP:RS say misogyny plays a role. The article is always going to say that as long as WP:RS say it. Strongjam (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we are getting side tracked. I was questioning the usage of "Debate". Adding "Debate" does not imply that it doesn't have a role, of course it does. It just means that the role is open for debate, which it is. Awaker81 13:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Except there is no evidence of there being a debate over it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Sources clearly talk about misogyny and antifeminism and it's sensible to use that title. See my comments in #Remind_of_what_WP:UNDUE_says above. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• oppose suggested change - it is not an NPOV issue to represent the misogyny and anti-feminism related in the controversy as multiple reliable mainstream sources do. in fact to hide the the misogyny and anti-feminism aspects would be an NPOV WP:UNDUE violation in reverse. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I've deactivated the {{edit protected}} because the full prot expired yesterday. However, it seems that consensus hasn't yet been reached, so please exercise caution when editing. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Tone

@Diego Moya: You have removed two sets of reliably sourced, and indisputable, pieces of information from this article for no reason. In this edit you remove "false" from the phrase "false allegations" when we have multiple sources that say that the initial allegations against Zoe Quinn were unfounded, and therefore they are false allegations. It is not a violation of WP:IMPARTIAL or WP:LABEL. In this edit you remove the description of the 1989 Montreal massacre, when both École Polytechnique massacre and Marc Lépine feature the phrase "fighting feminism". Is your contention over the word "delusion"? Because it's not like you can slander a dead mass murderer.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, you need an urgent re-reading of Wikipedia:TONE and WP:IMPARTIAL. Statements like "Marc was deluded" or "false accusations" in Wikipedia voice are the opposite of what we need to cover the topic in a detached, formal tone. If you try to push your interpretation and moral values into the article's tone, the neutrality tag will never have a chance to be removed. Please accept that your wording was not stellar and let the rest of us improve it and make it acceptable without fighting tooth and nail at every step. Diego (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Allegations were proven false, and Lepine is dead and buried for nearly as long as some of us have been alive. We can call his claims that he killed 14 women to fight the threat of feminism as a delusion. For example, here's History of Quebec for Dummies using the phrase "The actions of this delusional anti-feminist...". Here's the Oye! Times saying "Lépine would cross a line and see himself in a delusional manner to be someone on a mission of importance beyond his station in life".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

See WP:STICKTOSOURCES. It is your WP:BURDEN to find sources that directly support the sentence you introduced in the article (that the murder was made "under the delusion that he was fighting feminism", and even in that case it would be better attributed), otherwise what you're doing is at best WP:SYNTHESIS, at worst plain WP:OR. An aside in a "for dummies" book and a 2008 ad-based online newspaper written by volunteers ("for journalism students and others who want to express their opinions"!) without editorial review are not adequate sources for an unattributed claim in the article. Diego (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe you're arguing that a mass murderer who said he was "fighting feminism" was not deluded.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not. Any other ad-hominem, or can we delete your unsupported emotional addition to the article so that it can get a semblance of verifiability? (Admit it, you just googled it right now for "marc lepine delusion feminism" and posted the only hits that seemed remotely relevant). Diego (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason to delete the whole thing because it is an established fact that he said he was "fighting feminism" and so what if I made that search or a similar one? It shows it's in use, even if I can't find the sources they used to write those pieces.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See? Much better now. Diego (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

"He also had delusional qualities".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Describing perpetrators of premeditated hate crimes as paranoid and delusional followed by using Marc Lepine as an example.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Those sources still doesn't support "under the delusion that he was fighting feminism". If he said that he was fighting feminism, we can write that he said he was fighting feminism. Huge difference in sticking to sources, which is important for neutrality. Diego (talk) 09:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing "false" from "false allegations" is not IMPARTIAL—it is asserting that nothing is known, and the claims might be valid. Lots of people "allege" that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim, but they don't get to do that at Wikipedia. Removing "under the delusion that he was fighting feminism" reduces the death threat to just a run-of-the-mill threat that gets made every day. The particular point about mentioning Lépinen in the threat is that he was unbalanced and enacted a hate crime against women with claims that he was fighting feminism. That is a particularly pointed death threat for a feminist planning to appear in public. The wording may need tweaking or refs, but it has to stay. Johnuniq (talk) 09:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It is the wording what I'm complaining about. This article has huge problems in always using the most emotional-ridden wording and direct quotes of the opinions of anti-GG journalists, though WP:IMPARTIAL instructs us to "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute". I removed "false allegations" with the edit summary that we "let the facts speak for themselves"; in the very next sentence it is described in detail how Totilo clarified that "Grayson had not written anything about Quinn after the relationship had commenced and that he had never reviewed her games."

Why can't we just assume that the reader is intelligent enough to notice that the claims don't match the facts? Why is there a need to force those conclusions in Wikipedia's voice? The best approach favored by WP:NPOV is to explain what the claims were, and present the evidence that contradicts them. If we would stick to using that tone, there wouldn't be a need to "defend the articles from the hordes of SPA's", the article would stand by itself - and even those SPAs would agree that the article's content would be an accurate description of what the references said. Diego (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Because there is no reason to imply what we have ample sources to state outright. The allegations are false and claims to the contrary are espoused only by a minor fringe. When we repeat and republish allegations of wrongdoing and unethical behavior by two people that have been thoroughly debunked and discredited, we have the obligation to make clear that they are such.

You are suggesting that we water down well-sourced facts so as to satisfy the desires of a vocal fringe group to seem less wrong. That does not seem to be what Wikipedia is about. It is hardly our fault that their movement is built around a core belief which has been proven false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's rephrase this in terms of policy so that you understand my complaint: 1) What are the inline references that directly support the following assertion: "the allegations were false"? 2) If there is a source that directly makes that assertion, why don't we either attribute it in the text to that particular source, or describe it as a widespread view? Doing that would improve the tone without any "watering down" of the facts. Diego (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

There are four, count them, four references for that single sentence. If you want *even more* references on that sentence, it would be trivial to add them. How many sources would you be satisfied with? "false accusations that Quinn exchanged sex for reviews" (The Telegraph), "Yet many criticisms of press coverage by people who identify with Gamergate—about alleged collusion in video games between journalists and developers or among reporters—have been debunked" (Columbia Journalism Review), "an unfounded smear campaign" (Wired), "There was no Kotaku review of “Depression Quest,” the supposed “scandal” of journalistic impropriety that allegedly touched all this off" (New York), "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." (Canada.com), etc. etc. etc. etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

So, to address the second part of my argument that you have ignored, are you OK if we *follow policy* and word that as "Quinn's detractors in the gaming community alleged that the relationship had resulted in favorable media coverage, allegations that were widely seen as false by the mainstream press", or "the mainstream and gaming press described as false allegations", or some other equivalent wording? Diego (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No, we follow policy by saying that they are false, just as we follow policy by saying that the accusation of rape in the Duke lacrosse case was false. The fact that someone, somewhere might still believe it to be true is immaterial — it is the widely-accepted and unchallenged mainstream POV that the accusation was false. Similarly, that someone, somewhere might still believe the accusations against Quinn to be true is immaterial — it is the widely-accepted and unchallenged mainstream POV that the accusations are false. The viewpoint that the allegations against Quinn and Grayson are true is, at this point, clearly a fringe theory adhered to only by a tiny minority. We have no obligation to present their POV as deserving of equal time or space. This is particularly important given that these are effectively-anonymous allegations levied against living people, and I contend that to present entirely-debunked and proven-false anonymous allegations about two living people as anything other than what they are — discredited and disproven — would be a substantial violation of the BLP policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Allegations in Duke lacrosse case were of a physical action that were disproved in a judicial process, so apples to oranges. Here we have an assertion about an ambiguous criterion - "receiving favorable media coverage" - that is open to interpretation and as such can't be directly proven or disproven - it depends on how each party define what counts as facts. An assertion that Kotaku published a positive review of Depression Quest can be disproven, as there was no such review (but that's not what's written in the article). An assertion that Quinn received favorable coverage cannot, as what counts as favorable coverage is subjective.

Again, this has nothing to do with whether the facts happened or not, but with how we write about them - if the way to report the facts involves a point of view, as you recognize, the right way to write about them is by attributing the value judgement to the sources holding it. The way to debunk and prove the accusations false is by presenting the facts, not by compromising Wikipedia's detachment by adopting the values of judgement of the references as our own. We don't need in any way to present the fringe view that these were true as you suggest, but we just need to avoid asserting in Wikipedia's voice they're false, as they *are* part of a controversy and this sets the tone for the article regarding neutrality policy. Diego (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

To be more exact, because we actually spend a few sentence to explain how the accusations were disproven, we don't need to say that they were "false" - we have no idea if proGG knew 100% that they were false accusations (though clearly it was heavily speculation). --MASEM (t) 15:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Could we make the role of journalists into its own section?

It seems like it'd be better as it's own section rather than in the "Role of Misogyny and Anti-Feminism" section, and I think it'd allow more structural improvements. Halfhat (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't exactly fit where it is now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

WaPo

WaPo

That led to four conversations with self-proclaimed supporters, suggested by their peers, who denounced the harassment done in the movement's name. But, they said, for them Gamergate is not about harassing women; it's a debate about journalism ethics. Gamergate critics, meanwhile, say that defense is simply nothing more than a coordinated attempt to harass women out of the game industry. In other words, the massive fight around Gamergate is complicated by the fact that two sides don't even agree on what they're fighting about.

No one denies there has been harassment leveled against supporters on both sides of the issue. There's even speculation that the worst comes from Internet trolls who don't feel strongly about either side of the subject but just want to cause trouble.

less prominent participants in the debate have reported threats, on both sides. Erik Foreman, a 28-year-old Gamergate supporter, said he received an e-mail that included his current home address, a threat to mutilate his body and an implicit threat against his family. That prompted him to call local police, he said, who advised him to leave home for a while. Foreman said he did so immediately -- though he was amazed that he had to leave his home over a debate about games.

Suspicions over ethical problems in gaming journalism grew even after the accusations against Quinn were proven untrue, because of disclosures that some game journalists had supported crowd-funding campaigns for games -- or had personal relationships with developers they covered. An article at Breitbart purporting to show a "Journolist"-like mailing list of game journalists talking about coverage didn't help matters. Failing to disclose those conflicts, many supporters said, is "disrespectful" to those who read game sites, and that's the core of what makes them so mad. Oliver Campbell, a former game journalist who's become a prominent voice on the supporters' side, said he doesn't think the majority of Gamergate supporters actually care about discussing the place of women in the gaming industry. And, he said, he strongly believes that the fuel behind the fire would go out if gaming sites adopted and publicized some ethics policies requiring the disclosure of relationships -- similar to actions that some gaming sites, notably the Escapist, have already taken. Fix that, they said, and the whole conversation could stop.

Others agreed. "That would probably end it immediately," FinnyLawliet said.

Campbell also pointed to other efforts to recast the mainstream image of Gamergate, including a crowd-funding campaign to donate money to the PACER Center for National Bullying Prevention. Some have also launched coordinated campaigns against media sites -- notably Gawker Media and Gamasutra -- to persuade companies including Adobe and Intel to stop advertising on those sites.

"Gamergate actually owes a lot of its success to the controversy. It's less that it has to be a conversation about misogyny specifically, and more that it's a fairly basic Streisand effect," he said."The more the media tells people not to look, to just go away, the more people get curious."

Willhesucceed (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

There was another source documenting threats to proGG people too, don't remember which. Also yet another RS sourcing to Milo's GameJournosPro articles Loganmac (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Concerns

We do not need 4-5 sources for non-controversial facts

In discussion of the bare facts around Sarkeesian's and Wu's sitation, which is reporting the bare facts and no speculation, we do not need 4-5 sources for each. This is a potential slippery slope that load the articles with more sources that are against the proGG side, which we don't need to support bare facts. --MASEM (t) 03:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• I generally agree with most of the concerns raised here, but this one should be easy to do without riling up one side or another. I don't know that we need to worry so much about added anti-GG sources shifting the article. If we find ourselves with 4-5 reliable sources supporting a position we should ask if it needs to be expanded rather than just bombing 5 sources which agree on facts. Some claims may want 2 or even 3 sources (for especially contentious claims or claims where the originating source is shown alongside some follow-up. But for the most part we should avoid citationitis. Protonk (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikileaks section FAR too detailed and UNDUE

[25] is a sign of the problem that the rest of the article has in that we're elaborating with no focus. Given how hard it is to find sources tying Wikilinks to this, though with some sources, a sentence or two is appropriate, but not an entire rambling paragraph that puts into question how Wikilinks was trying to show support and to a point of being almost laughingly critical of that support. This is not what we need going forward to balance this article. --MASEM (t) 03:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

That's what the source says. If you want to change it then do it. Nothing that goes into this article is ever good for you. And multiple references are fine.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

A source, compared to where there are usually a half-dozen or more for parts that we devote one sentence to. This is exactly the problem why people are critical of the article because it latches far too much on singular points of view to skew the picture. --MASEM (t) 03:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No. People are critical of the article because it does that in a way that casts the Gamergate movement in a negative light. No one would give a shit if it was full of pro-GG propaganda.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The way you have opted to write the section, from a source that is slanted away from proGG (but not to the point of overly biased), mocks the support that Wikilinks has appeared to give proGG side (due to the oddness in their tweets); you can argue you can do that because the Verge reported it as an RS even if biased, but that's not what we should be done. That's exactly the problem here is that the article is walking the line of violating POV policy without actually doing so (or doing so in an obvious manner). We can back away from that without failing to do the job we are to do, summarize sources. --MASEM (t) 03:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit is better. Still a bit much imho but i can live with it. Thank you for parring it down. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree that is laughable, every small thing a company does that is mildly shown as proGG, gets labeled as a misogynist company in the article. Loganmac (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The word "misogyny" does not appear anywhere in the description of the WikiLeaks entry or anywhere remotely near it in the article. It wasn't even in the original draft that was twice as long as the entry is now. You're grasping at straws to discredit me, Loganmac.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Haha what, where did I even mention you. You're getting a little too paranoid man Loganmac (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Need for basic clarifications

I read this article to get a basic understanding of gamergate, starting from minimal background knowledge. There are a few areas I noticed that could use clarification. I had to go to the references to figure it out for myself, but it should be fairly simple for someone better versed in the topic to make changes so the next person won't have to hunt it down like I did. The most important instance is in the Backlash and Social Media Campaign section. When it says, "10,000 users that support GamerGate," it is unclear what it means to "support GamerGate." Likewise, the article doesn't indicate how the hashtag is/was used. What I mean by this is that the controversy surrounding the issue is so complex that it's unclear whether GamerGate is about the "critique of ethics in video games media" or the misogyny and harassment that came from some people claiming to support that critique. Of course the two are linked, but as I understand it, GamerGate is supposed to be about the policy and ethics of the video game industry, and the harassment controversy arose later, in response to the actions of some supporters of that criticism. Kludgel (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reworked the lead in that section to show whom would be prone to use that tag and, in the less cynical view, using the tag to show their support/present their case. That is a good point. --MASEM (t) 03:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted some of your edit. We cannot say that those who began using the hashtag were solely "concerned with journalism ethics" — that is a "fact" not in evidence, and is actually contradicted by significant evidence of organized misogynist harassment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, that's fine (the version I'm looking at). At some point, we do need to reflect how the media sees the ethics arguments co-opted by other things like the harassment. --MASEM (t) 05:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

A significant number of reliable sources suggest or state that the "ethics" concerns were invented as a smokescreen.

Even disregarding those issues, this article is about *the controversy* and regardless of what GamerGate supporters would like, the reliable sources have focused primarily on the misogynistic harassment. The overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources tend to conclude that while there are ethical issues in the video game industry worthy of discussion, GamerGate's initial and continuing obsession with disproven allegations about a indie developer who gave her game away for free is a) at the very least, suggestive of ulterior motives related to women in video games and b) completely missing, if not willfully ignoring, the "real" ethical issues in the industry. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to add (NBSB I think touched this), there is no sourcing to say that there was a coordinated effort before Quinn's harassment - all sources even suggesting that there was a coordinated effort that had no connection to the harassment do not show evidence until after the harassment had started. I think the present background, which does show a trend that gamers were becoming disastified with the gaming press, is about as legit as we can come to saying there were ethic concerns before, but there is no way we can reasonably document it as a movement until after the harassment. --MASEM (t) 04:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop adding quotes

Please stop loading up the article with quotes that are outside the factual narrative of the history of GG, since we are never going to be able to provide anything close to balanced coverage of the topic, every "flavor" quote beyond the facts of the case is taking more potshots at the proGG side. We need to be clinically neutral, so we should be minimizing the number of quotes in this article. We can not victimize the antiGG's that have been targetted, or villainize the proGG side. Every quote added after talking about the harassment outside of Quinn/Sarkaasian is 100% unnecessary and only there to rub the fact that the press see the proGG as bad. This is exactly why this article is drawing SPAs. It's been pointed out that the es.wiki version Gamergate - which is basically our version less 90% of the quotes that are not directly tied to the narrative, is considered fair by the various proGG forums and I would have to agree with that sentiment. I'd also add that WP:QUOTEFARM is not a way to write an article.

Yes we are going to have to pull quotes to summarize the analysis of GG, but again - summarize, to hit the high points, not get every viewpoint possible. --MASEM (t) 06:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how it is "unnecessary" to demonstrate that the Sarkeesian and Wu death threats represented a significant turning point in the media narrative, drawing widespread condemnation and the conclusion from a variety of sources that the movement is fatally flawed.

Discussing the fact that the media took significant notice of international-headline-making events linked to GamerGate does not make the article less "neutral." This article summarizes significant published viewpoints about GamerGate, and by far the most significant published viewpoint is the one I was expanding upon.

A neutral, policy-based article on GamerGate is never going to satisfy pro-GamerGate SPAs, Masem. They dislike the fact that their movement has been generally rejected and condemned by reliable sources. Our role is not to minimize their dislike — our role is to reflect the significant viewpoints published in reliable sources, regardless of whether those being criticized believe that criticism is fair or not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a reason I'm tracking the various boards, because I at least have a good idea why SPAs still keep coming here, and it is attitudes that we don't to give any respect to the proGG is what infuriates them. We're never going to be able to tell the narrative that they want, they know that, but they want a narrative that doesn't praise the antiGG side as angelic and obliterate the proGG side as a whole. We certainly can get a lot closer. --MASEM (t) 06:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, this is what everyone has been trying to say. All we ask is that the article stops reading like an attack. Even Nazism or Ku Klux Klan or ISIS get more damn respect than gamergate and they are actually classified as hate groups or terrorists. Retartist (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Masem, I'm getting really tired of your demands that we temper the content going into this article because it might anger Gamergate. It's not our fault that they have bad PR.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, every time you can plug that the harassment was seen as misogynic (after it's already been said 50 times over), you're rubbing it in their face. We are to be clinically neutral. This is not. People editing this need to see this. For example, this edit [26] just adding "a 1989 shooting spree motivated by misogyny" is 100% unnecessary, and is a POV addition to go "HEY THIS IS MORE MISOGYNY!" It screams that, and I'm not proGG , I'm a WP editor looking to keep our article neutral. You cannot edit this article in a manner that we can piss all over the proGG side and go "Oh, but there's no sources, so sorry". --MASEM (t) 06:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

We know you're not proGG. But your calls for neutrality are impossible to attain. Every source from Kotaku to CNN and BBC note that the movement is misogynistic and there's nothing that we can do to not include that in the article. GamerGate has never accomplished anything remotely close to its goals of rooting out corruption in games media and has instead made every woman in the industry and even those peripheral to video games scared to say anything lest they have to leave their home like others have. Every single media figure has pointed out the misogyny except for the conservative talking heads that have used GamerGate for their own ends.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It is their opinion that it is misogynic. There is no hard proof that it is. So we cannot report it as fact, we report the clear common statement that GG appears misogynci, but not is. --MASEM (t) 07:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It is the "opinion" of multiple news media, including highly respectable news agencies. You're kowtowing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

We weight viewpoints based upon their prominence in reliable sources. Do we really have to go do the source-counting thing again, Masem? The media consensus keeps getting stronger and stronger and stronger, particularly after the threats against Sarkeesian and Wu. Those events drew international media attention to GamerGate and virtually no one liked what they saw. It is, at this point, a constant drumbeat and refrain and a near-universal consensus: GamerGate's leaderless, anonymous, amorphous nature makes it completely hopeless as a movement; its foundation in — and continuing attachment to — categorically-false allegations about Zoe Quinn makes it difficult to take seriously; its association with misogynistic harassment is a permanent stain that poisons any attempt to create a reasonable conversation; the issues that it's raising aren't actually journalism ethics issues (there's no such thing as an objective review, examining issues of gender, race, class and politics in art forms is bog-standard criticism and there's nothing unethical about someone giving a bad review to a game they view as sexist); and those who are interested in having actual discussions about journalism ethics need to abandon it and try something else. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Really? You're raising an objection to describing as misogynistic a mass-murder shooting spree that is widely agreed to be at least partially motivated by anti-feminism and misogyny, which ensures that readers understand the message and ideology that the writer of the Sarkeesian threat intended to convey? I don't even, Masem. Signing the threat as he did was a clear and unambiguous part of the message. There is no "other side" to that matter and there is no "balance" to be had. He signed a threat of mass violence against women with the name of the person responsible for one of the most notable examples of mass anti-female violence in recent history. Reliable sources did not fail to note that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I am, because we have a wikilink so that the person can go and read about it. Not every article that covered it mentioned why that massacre was important relative to that, and even the NYTimes biases that statement mentioned that the guy shot 13 women and failing to mention that several men were also shot (note, I read through the case details and understand that they clearly identified the shooter as misogynistic from his personal notes and earlier behavior, I'm not saying he wasn't). Most sources let the reader come to the conclusion themselves if the reason it was connected was due to the misogyny. It's basically OR and POV. These are the little things we can fix and do better on without ticking off the other side. I know it may seem incredibly nuanced but we have to make this effort. --MASEM (t) 07:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Even ignoring the bias concerns, it adds tons of bloat adds little information, and is aesthetically poor. Halfhat (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

NYTimes Opinion piece

[27]. Opinion piece, so obvious with a bit of grain, but this is the first one that focuses on some of the complaints about "games that aren't games" (like QD and Gone Home) and less about the harassment, and arguing on the logic that if this idea of games have to be "games", it could reverse the gains that video games have had in becoming a recognized art form has made in recent years. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I have the sense that the medium has outgrown its roots, hence the backlash. kencf0618 (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

What about TotalBiscuit to represent some pro-GG opinion

He has been refereed to in various unrelated gaming stories. If we're having the opinions of nvolved people like Quinn, it seems unbalanced to not have anyone pro-GG. He also has a lot of work to refer to. Halfhat (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It's admirable to aim for balance in things, but I think Wikipedia aims to be more of an encyclopedia, and as such should probably (?) just document the significant media coverage of this campaign rather than attempt to cover each and every view. 27.253.103.235 (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Poor Halfhat. Go do something better than trying to contribute to this article, i.e. anything else. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually enjoy what I'm doing here, even if it doesn't show. Halfhat (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

He would not be a reliable source for something like this. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I mean for opinions rather than facts. Halfhat (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The thing we'd ideally like to have though is a reliable source that cites/quotes Bain (sorry, I cannot bring myself to call a grown man a baked good) in the context of a Gamergate article. All I see at the moment are 2 very small name-drops, one in a Forbes article and another in Brietbart. He's talked about Gamergate on twitter and reddit I see, but those are primary sources. Btw, this was worth a chuckle this morning...not being sarcastic, it was genuinely funny. Tarc (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

We can still use primary sources for opinion as long as they're deemed significant. I was using the fact he had been refereed to in many other gaming topics to make a case for significance Halfhat (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless he's referred to in reliable sources, or he contributes to a periodical with editorial oversight, we should avoid self published sources unless they are about people directly affected by the debate as determined in other reliable sources.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

If anyone attempted to actually search, they'd find TotalBiscuit's opinions referred to plenty by reliable news coverage, including TechCrunch[28] and Forbes[29]. Although his video acted as a lightning rod for discussion of the topic, it's worth pointing out that he does not appear to be a strong supporter of the movement, later clarifying/pointing out that the original video had been couched in an "if" clause (something like "if the allegations are true regarding Zoe Quinn, then it shows blah blah...") His influence is definitely part of the story, and should be mentioned and clarified better than I have here. Also I'm going to mention that I'm disgusted by your condescending tone, Halfhat. Please do not treat other users like that. It only makes yourself look bad, and invalidates anything you have said. —Pengo 23:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it TechCrunch is not considered a reliable source due to poor editorial oversight. Erik Kain is an opinion columnist, and one who is already used too much in this article. We're looking for reliable sources that have referred to commentators to confirm that their opinions are significant enough to include in the article: one unreliable source and anther opinion source isn't really a lot considering the sheer amount of coverage this subject has received. There are a lot of much more significant opinion sources to choose from. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Using Erik Kain "too much" is unfortunate, but isn't really a reason to exclude an important figure (TotalBiscuit) from the article. TotalBiscuit is also mentioned in The Metro[30], where he is described as a "semi-supporter of GamerGate". —Pengo 00:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a quick name-drop only, there's nothing out there to establish just why this particular person should be given article-time, sorry. Tarc (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Tarc, maybe look above, maybe you'd see that 'nothing' would be the reliable sources in proportion to WP:DUE weight. Tutelary (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll let you know when someone here other than your SPA colleagues values your opinion. This person is just a guy giving an opinion in venues such as reddit or his own twitter feed. Until and unless those opinions are picked up by reliable sources, we will not be using them in this article. Tarc (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

When you put it like that, you can make anything sound as if it's cow manure. 'Electricity is just the stuff that powers your TV.' I also do like your elaboration of good faith and civility, obviously not trying to degrade or depreciate a fellow editor's thoughts on the matter. He's received due coverage in reliable sources for such opinions and as such has a place in the article. Tutelary (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

"He's received due coverage in reliable sources..." is a lie. Tarc (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

[31], [32],[33], [34] (All but one of these were present in the above discussion, that's what I meant.) Tutelary (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

While he's been adopted by the pro-gamergate camp, his views are fairly specific and nuanced. It's surprising so little has been written about him, as he's a prominent public figure and reacted to the controversy quite early on, so his videos acted as a lightning rod for the topic, sparking a huge amount of online discussion. There were 24,760 comments on TB's video which addressed gamergate-related topics when it was posted to Reddit's /r/gaming. This is far more comments than the top 10 posts in /r/gaming/ ever, combined. Whether this is significant by itself, or whether his views are particularly notable or not, the reaction he caused, and the subsequent reaction to the deletion of all the comments in the above mentioned thread and related threads (presumably because the conversation turned toxic or the mods were unable to handle the flood. I can't find the official stated reason), seems to be something which should be included the overall narrative more than peripherally, as it is now. It's a shame no reliable sources have published about this event.

I shouldn't have to say this, but anyone replying, please assume good faith, something I have not observed in the editing and automatic reverting of edits in this article. —Pengo 07:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Bain can hold opinions but because he is not a central subject of this controversy and his opinions have not been included in reliable sources, whatever he may or may not have said is not a subject of discussion or his article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Bias Issue Remove uses of the word noted

I thought the use of noted was questionable, and it seems the manual of style on with me on this WP:say. The article makes use of the word "Noted", which implies truth, when describing the opinions of commenter's. I think we should work through to remove this with more neutral language. Halfhat (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you not have dealt with this above? Artw (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

They're linked but I though separating them would be cleaner Halfhat (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting analysis of GamerGate and the media response

Sorry for posting so many new sections today. But this is a pretty interesting take on GamerGate. http://frontpsych.com/wag-the-dog-entrenched-in-gamergate/ Unfortunataly I'm really not sure how reliable it is, so it'll need checked, though even if it's not I think editors should read it anyway because it is interesting, and to write a good article it helps to have a good understanding, and I hope more like this will come from more well know sources. Halfhat (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Weasel Words edit war

Okay I've been involved in an edit war with User:Tarc over an edit (affectively undoing an edit of my own) by User:Artw. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gamergate_controversy&diff=631193120&oldid=631193021 The argument is over if it qualifies for WP:Weasel . I argue it does not as that only refers to when an opinion is not attributed to anyone, but they disagree. Halfhat (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Please be less dramatic, two reverts is not an "edit war". And yes, those were weasel words. Artw (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing magic about those words themselves that make them weasely. The problem is when there is a lack of attribution, this is not the case. Halfhat (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

As noted in the edit summary, the reason why weasel words are discouraged is that they are a subtle way to weaken the wording and call into question the veracity of the words... "Bob noted that the sky was clear this morning" vs "Bob claimed that the sky was clear this morning." You're altering the former into the latter. So please, stop doing that. Tarc (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This should be the case since it's the views of the people though. We shouldn't be making out their views and opinions to be facts. The views are clearly attributed. Halfhat (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × many)There are two parts to this edit war. The first problem is less WP:WEASEL and more WP:SAY. Argued and claimed are both loaded terms and using them introduces bias so should be avoided. For that matter, noted is also on the list of words to avoid when writing that someone said something. Therefore, those instances of noted, along with the aforementioned argued and claimed instances should all be rewritten more neutrally with said or stated.

The second part of this edit war is your edit to change Chris Suellentrop spoke of his issues with the movement such as its attacks on women to Chris Suellentrop spoke of his issues with the movement such as the attacks on women assoicated. Your change results in a sentence that makes no sense, has a spelling error, and uses phrasing that implies that women are being attacked but not by gamergate - and that's not what Seullentrop says. That said, Suellentrop didn't say that the gamergate people are attacking all women but only those in the industry, so a better phrase might be Chris Suellentrop spoke of his issues with the movement such as its attacks on women associated with the video game industry. Ca2james (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I only noticed the English errors after the edit war began, so I decided to wait until it was over before addressing them.Halfhat (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

After some thought I think you're right, we should stick to say. It's basically impossible to cause problems with and implies nothing Halfhat (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Lede changes

NorthBySouthBaranof made an extensive change to the lead paragraph, arguably putting more emphasis on the issues of misogyny and sexism, while another editor new to the page Pengo has been doing the exact opposite. I've asked Pengo twice, and NorthBySouthBaranof mentioned in an edit summary to him once, to raise issues with changing the lead paragraph on this talk page, but he has effectively ignored these and reinstated his proposed changes on two separate occasions and claiming he has "addressed the concerns". Masem restored the previous form of the lead paragraph that does not give any weight to anything. We get it Masem. Neutrality. But this is neutrality. It's reflecting what's in reliable sources on the matter now which is the focus on the attacks on women for being women and seeing the "we want ethics" line to be a facade. This is getting tiresome. Mutliple editors who have never edited this article prior to everything blowing up on WP:AN in the past few days have recognized the issues with your calls for neutrality. People here and off of Wikipedia entirely have compared Gamergate supporters' desire for neutrality as not applicable to Wikipedia's or anyone else's concept of "neutrality". We cannot temper one side of the discussion (the side that does not agree with #GamerGate and categorizes it as a misogynist hate movement) to satisfy the other (the side that insists that it's actually about ethics in journalism) when the reliable sources do not reflect this. We cannot keep this up for another two months.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

My edit was based on Pengo's changes in terms of its theme of GamerGate as a movement. However, I rewrote it to emphasize what reliable sources have emphasized about the movement, and the repeatedly-expressed sense that GamerGate is a "culture war," which seems to be a sensible way of explaining it. We should be clear how the movement got started, which reliable sources have noted was the initial false allegations against Quinn. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The neutral version does not start by immediately blaming the proGG side for the issues. Remember, the gaming developer and journalists have admitted the situation that lead to GG is partially their fault for fostering this type of environment. Neutral would not put blame on anyone in the first sentence of the lead. --MASEM (t) 05:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That's because the controversy only exists because of the "proGG" side making a big deal out of one woman's sex life. And Pengo you better respond to the thread here instead of repeatedly inserting the same thing into the lead paragraph to insist that the ethics issue is more important than everything else.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it started with Quinn's harassment is still fine for the lede, just not the lead sentence. The proGG side needs to be treated as human beings like we treat the others, and the change basically is instead thumbing our nose at them. --MASEM (t) 05:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

BTW, in relation to this, due to sanctions now on this article, existing editors should try to maintain 1RR (eg strict WP:BRD) issues; I know the sanction isn't for 1RR, but we, the experienced editors, keep this in mind, that will be better examples of others to avoiding having to enforce the sanction. (I debated taking Ryulong's two reverts of the lede back to ANI, but decided the RFC below was the better option). --MASEM (t) 06:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Pengo was requested multiple times to address his concerns on the talk page but has not. I am again being drawn into these idiotic little edit wars because I want to stick to WP:BRD, inform other parties of this courtesy, but I am ignored every time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I was going to do a 2RR earlier on some edit you had done that I reverted once already, and paused and hovered my mouse over "undo", and chose not to, realizing the issue with your addition was part of the larger picture. Patience is required here. Unless it is a immediate BLP issue, we should try to avoid revert wars with the sanction on this, even if we stay under 3RR. --MASEM (t) 06:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I had been planning to self-revert but got edit conflicted when NBSB added onto the lede.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof's new opening paragraph is an improvement, but the first sentence still needs a lot of work. "In video game culture, Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #GamerGate) is an online movement which emerged around false allegations of unethical conduct levied against indie game developer Zoe Quinn in August 2014." What does that mean? What is it telling the reader? It's a movement, OK, that's an improvement over it being merely a vague "controversy". And it once had something to do with someone who did not actually do something in August. That's what it tells me. Seriously, that's not a description, it's perhaps an argument against something that it hasn't explained yet. Gamergate, at least in its current incarnation, as sick of you are of hearing, is widely said by its proponents, and as reported in The Verge, is ostensibly (meaning avowedly, declaredly, or professedly) about ethics in game journalism, particularly conflicts of interest between video game journalists and developers. Is it just a façade? Are the misogynistic aspects more important? When were the false allegations against Zoe Quinn made and how did they spark the movement? You have the rest of the opening paragraph and the rest of the article to discuss that. It's not about pushing a POV, it's about making the article readable to anyone trying to actually read it. If you put the answer before the question it just doesn't make sense. The faith healing article waits a whole three paragraphs before saying "Faith healing is an example of pseudoscientific magical thinking". You can wait until the second sentence to describe the misogyny and harassment by those connected with Gamergater. User:NorthBySouthBaranof's rewritten opening paragraph is still a vast improvement over what was there before, and manages to cover the culture war and the lack of leadership or organization in the movement which I believe were all absent from the opening paragraph before too. But it still needs work. I don't believe discussing it here is the best way. It's a wiki. You edit it. You make incremental improvements until it's better. That is how it works best.

Ryulong, please stop assuming bad faith and reverting edits without giving a reason, or under false pretences. You ignored the fact I addressed your stated concerns in my second edit and reverted it again anyway, and then did not revert NorthBySouthBaranof who did exactly the same thing you complained about—changing the article to be about a movement instead of a controversy, and nor have you raised that issue on this talk page. Nor did I in any way attempt to reduce any mention of the "issues of misogyny and sexism", as you have accused me of here. Nowhere did I insist it was an ethics issue, and again, you are assuming bad faith to say that. I am merely trying to make the article make sense, by stating what the people in the movement have said their movement is ostensibly (meaning seemingly, apparently) about.

Ryulong, Stating what a movement is about, according to the people who are in that movement, as stated in a reliable source, is not POV pushing.

Ryulong, You have showed no attempt to show that you had read or understood anything I wrote in reply to you on my talk page, as you appear to be so fast in your attempts to assume a POV that you have repeatedly misrepresented anything I have said or done and reverted every edit I have made. Not everything has to pass through the talk page. Edit to improve what you don't like instead of relying on reverting and arguments on talk pages, please. Please stop failing to assume good faith. That's how Wikipedia works best. —Pengo 09:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter if you claim you addressed the concerns of myself or NorthBySouthBaranof. We both contested your proposed changes which means as soon as that happens you do not reinstate them again with "concerns addressed" and instead you begin a discussion on the talk page to argue in favor of your proposed changes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• My feeling is that Pengo's changes (especially this edit) have had the effect of making the lead much worse; the current version reads like a somewhat vague, handwavy attempt to treat all sides equal regardless of what reliable sources say. I move to revert back to the version prior to that edit and use it as the basis for future changes, since it strikes me as much more clear, accurate, and legible; Pengo's version is vague, hard to parse, and reflects neither the article nor the consensus of reliable coverage. Some other additions since then could be worked in elsewhere, but I feel that the edit I linked to badly damaged the lead and needs to be undone. --Aquillion (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate is so much about journalism ethics and not harassment

Extended content

...that 8channers are trying to dox me. [35] Good work, Gamergaters. Keep proving how interested you are in journalism ethics and how opposed you are to harassment. Harassing and doxing those who are opposed to you is surely the means to show the world how you want to have serious conversations about journalism ethics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC) In what way is this suggesting to make the article better. Wikipedia is not a forum, vent your frustrations on 8chan then Loganmac (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC) You can't expect to meaningfully invalidate an entire movement that's this diverse (or, to put it another way, unfocused) in both aims and methodology based on the actions of a few members. That's like saying all feminists are hypocrites because a few of them admit to being misandrists. Tezero (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC) If a movement can't control or disavow the worst among it, it will end up being judged by the actions of the worst among it. As we see today. Anonymous trolls doxing and harassing people are the public face of your movement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Unfortunately you're right - which is why Christians are sometimes judged by Fred Phelps, atheists by Mao Zedong, gay rights activists by Dan Savage, and advocates for greater female representation in the games industry by Anita Sarkeesian. That doesn't make these judgers right. Tezero (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC) When the only meaningful thing your movement has done is harass people out of their homes, you should probably not expect the weight of media coverage to be favorable or even neutral. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC) I imagine a lot of editors here have experienced similar - one of the Subreddits briefly posted some of my details. Artw (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC) I was also insulted by Ryulong on my personal twitter. And another user linked to my reddit and twitter profiles. Still this has nothing to do with the article. Funny that the bearer of all knowledge on Wikipedia policies NorthBySouthBaranof doesn't know this Loganmac (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Kotaku does NOT forbid its staff from having financial ties to its subject

The sentence under "GamerGate activism" that says "while Kotaku wholly prohibits its staff from supporting any game developers through the website" is wrong. Here http://kotaku.com/about-gamergate-1630707501 Editor-in-chief Stephen Totilo states and I quote "This last bit is something that even had me regretting my phrasing of a recent statement I made about Patreon support, simply because something I'd meant as a best practice for regular Kotaku writers (don't fund developers personally on an ongoing basis for non-coverage purposes) was seen as an attack on the Patreon service and/or an excuse to cast aspersions on any reporter who does fund a developer Patreon. I think we can all judge a reporter or critic by the body of their work and use common sense to judge the spirit of their intent. And to clarify and evolve the policy I stated in light of the healthy debate that followed: I believe that Kotaku writers are indeed entitled to pay into a game developer Patreon if that's what they need to do to access a developer's work for coverage purposes. They can even expense it."

The sentence should be changed Loganmac (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Donating to receive early access information to report on it for the website is not a "financial tie".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this a request? You can edit the article yourself if autoconfirmed. Muscat Hoe (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

My edit will get reverted by Ryulong, I don't want to write for free for him to revert in 5 seconds without even reading it Loganmac (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I've made the change, clarifying that Kotaku permit writers to use Patreon to access material for review. I should be clear, though, that the title of this section is misleading - there is no claim that they permit "financial ties" beyond paying for access to review material. - Bilby (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Game Journo Pro list

There are at least two reliable sources mentioning the mailing list, is it possible to include Breitbart's articles?

Washington Post: How some Gamergate supporters say the controversy could stop “in one week”

GameZone: Here’s what we know: Allistair Pinsof, Destructoid, Yanier "Niero" Gonzalez, Game Journo Pros and more

GameZone also references this blog: #GAMERGATE: DESTRUCTOID, CORRUPTION AND RUINED CAREERS Racuce (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The "game journalists collude via mailing list" is a long-debunked meme, there's really nothing more to say about it. Tarc (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The GameZone article indicates otherwise: "in what appears to be an attempt to blacklist" Racuce (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It would seem to be original research to link this article with Gamergate, even if we decide that GameZone is a reliable source, which I'm not sure it is. The only time Gamergate is mentioned is when the author says he's neither for nor against it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is why I asked if the leaks from Breitbart could be considered reliable, since they are referenced by a reliable source. But you already answered that. GameZone is considered a reliable source.Racuce (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal blogs are not acceptable sources for living persons issues, and Breitbart is categorically unreliable. So no. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

GameIndustry.biz also did an article on it Loganmac (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason not to include a brief mention of the GJP list with the reliable sourcing on it; what would probably be necessary is to make sure if there are reliable sources that talk about such collaboration being a common thing in any industry to point out this was nothing new and only taking as collusion by people like Milo. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I can think of one very good reason: there is no reliable sourcing. Gamezone is a reliable source for video games, perhaps, but not for negative commentary about living people. The fact that no mainstream or higher-profile industry sources are paying this incident any mind means that including it would be a WP:FRINGE problem. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

WApost is fine, as well this to at least explain that it was part but later discounted as anything worthwhile. Like the initial allegations towards Quinn. It does show some of the stretches that the proGG side has tried to argue towards their point, which you can take either way. --MASEM (t) 00:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) They're [GameZone is] professionals in the video game industry; they do articles on, say, video game promotion events, video game designer interviews, and video game characters as well. Why wouldn't they be a reliable source for a notable figure in the video game industry? That's like saying Rolling Stone can't be reliable for a statement that happens to be negative because their chief focus is supposed to be glorifying classic rock in their album reviews. Tezero (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll just leave these here: [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

a source about how being a leaderless, amorphous group is impacting the "movement"

A nice encapsulation from a source that does media analysis: the on-going troll crusade known as #gamergate wherein a small rabble is using a trumped up scandal as cover for a full on attack on female game makers and game critics.

They go on to discuss the "tactic" of being an amorphous, leaderless movement, and how the key spokespeople / signalboosters for the movement have come from outside of the game industry and are essentially using the topic to recruit a new demographic to their own audiences. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Julian Assange Misquoted

The 'Wikileaks' section currently states:

during the session a user fielded a question on censorship in Internet communities over GamerGate, Assange remarked that it was 'pathetic'"

. The cited article [43] only gives a passing mention to the Gamergate controversy once in the heading and doesn't link that particular quote to the controversy. The original post in the AMA thread makes it clear that this line is in reference to Gamergate, but the cited article does not.

Furthermore, there is no citation given to support that Assange believes Gamergate is 'uninteresting' as quoted in the article, and overall there seems to be some misrepresentation of his words in that section (a violation of WP:BLP I believe). Ninja337 (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

"It's pathetic." which is also addressed by The Verge's article on GamerGate (which makes the connection). Also Assange isn't quoted as saying it's not interesting. Whoever is in charge of the WikiLeaks Twitter account is quoted as saying "'Gamergate' is not interesting.]" (see also [44]).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That isn't clear from how the article sits now. The quote appears under a picture of Assange and the sentence it is mentioned in doesn't distinguish between Julian and the Wikileaks twitter. The Verge article is okay but it should be cited along with any quotes as per BLP.

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation.

. Ninja337 (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain it does but it can be clarified.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Too biased.

I will not mention name, but some people here has now coup de etat this article the last 24 hours too their personal views. This happened even though some of the persons involved promised to take a break from editing here after several people have complained about this persons behaviour. This has made this article very ubalanced. --Torga (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

We have been there and done that multiple times. reflecting what the now overwhelming mainstream views of the topic are is not in any way "bias". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You can call me out, Torga, just as I can call you out for being a single purpose account who has done nothing on Wikipedia in the past three months other than contribute to this article and its talk page to push the idea that this article is biased. Now stop restoring the lead paragraph to an older version because now it's fucking fully protected again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

As you opened this thread, Torga you cannot remove this because you personally do not think that Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and Brianna Wu leaving their homes out of fear for their lives is not connected to GamerGate. This is supported by multiple sources. Do not give me the "GamerGate is not mentioned in the threats" excuse either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

When did you became the boss of this site. You are acting like you have authority here. Why is it that you insists that everything you write should stand, and only way we are allowed to remove those things you write is with a concensus afterwards? And if we do add something, you claim there are no sources, and when there are sources you claim they are not reliable, and when there are relaible sources you dismiss them as either in minority or that there are no consensus to change thing. --Torga (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the things I've contributed to the page are supported by reliable sources. You've personally done no such thing as far as I am aware, and particularly not in this situation as per below.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, you cannot claim that "Boogie" and "Nero" (Yiannopoulos) have also fled their homes when they are not addressed by reliable sources. You cannot add the claim that "two pro-GG journalists" to the page. I don't even know if boogie2988 qualifies as a journalist so much as he is just some talking head on YouTube who plays a character.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The place of "Ethics" in the lede

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.

---

It's long past time to start reworking the lede: we're currently giving serious undue weight to gamergaters' unsupported contention that their movement is about ethics and conflicts of interest. Let's look at the five sources currently following that statement in the lede.

• The sexist crusade to destroy game developer Zoe Quinn, The Daily Dot.
• GamerGate: Everyone Hates Each Other And I'm Really Tired, CinemaBlend.
• Misogyny, death threats and a mob of trolls: Inside the dark world of video games with Zoe Quinn - target of #GamerGate, The Telegraph.
• #GamerGate: Misogyny or corruption in the gaming community?, AlJazeera.
• Gamergate-related controversy reveals ugly side of gaming community, LA Times.

Of these, none go any further than saying that gaters claim that they are addressing ethical concerns in journalism, and at this point even that is the minority: more and more sources, when they mention gamergate's 'ethics' claims, will actually take the time to debunk them rather than just noting that the 'gamergate is about ethics!' claims exist. While many sources, here and elsewhere, treat gamergate's misogyny as a given, we only have sourcing here of the fact that gaters say that their movement is about corruption. I don't argue with that, but we don't merely say that it's a movement that claims to be interested in ethics, we say that it is one, and give that statement the same weight as the far better cited concerns about misogyny. As things stand now, this is not appropriate. It really never was, to be honest, but the sheer number of recent, mainstream sources that have come out and called a spade a spade in recent weeks should make that blindingly obvious. This article gives a good summary of what some of the highest-profile publications who've talked about gamergate recently have been saying.

The last time this was brought up the discussion was derailed by vague and never-supported claims of 'anti-gg bias' in the article. So POV pushers and SPAs take note: consensus is not a vote. "Nuh-uh, it's all about ethics" no matter how many of you say it, is not going to cut it here. "This article is already biased against gamergate and you want to make it worse!!!!1" is not going to do it either. Articles where journalists cite specific examples of ethical concerns in the context of saying 'there are real ethical concerns, but gamergate is for some reason ignoring them' are certainly not going to work. We're not looking for your opinions, we're looking for sources that support retaining this unsupported claim in the article. If you want to support the claim that your movement is primarily concerned with journalistic ethics, you need to find reliable, mainstream publications that are treating your actual activities as examples of pro-ethics advocacy. As it stands the only ones I've seen have commented on how much hate has been targeted at women and how bizarre it is to attempt to control what publications say about you by attacking their advertisers in the name of 'ethics.' Provide evidence from reliable sources that justify giving 'ethics' equal weight to the movement's far better cited aims of silencing women who say things its members don't like. Not just a few opinion articles: remember, you're trying to shout time the front page of the New York Times here. Let's see some evidence that shows that the current lede does not constitute a WP:WEIGHT problem. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

New here, but looking at the sources for the 'ethics' claim it looks to me like the statement violates WP:SYN as well. Strongjam (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following you, but if you mean that citing genuine ethical concerns as 'proof' that gamergate is about ethics, then you're right, without anything to link those concerns to gamergate that would be WP:SYNTH. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant that the statement "as well as journalistic ethics in the online gaming press, particularly conflicts of interest between video game journalists and developers." seems to violate WP:SYNTH to me. Unless I'm missing something none of those articles say anything about conflicts of interest. I think though the discussion might be better focused on what newer WP:RS have said about Gamergate. Strongjam (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This one http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201409032102-0024126 doesn't support your claim at all, it's little more than a collection of the opinions of others. Halfhat (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

What claim have I made that this source doesn't support? What I'm saying is that our sources currently may say that gamergate claims to be about ethics, but they either stop there or go so far as to discredit that claim, whereas the movement's misogynistic behavior is much better supported. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because there hasn't been any validation of the specific concerns that the proGG side has brought up about ethics doesn't mean it is not part of the issues. And even sources heavily biased against GG say, maybe not with the most pleasent language, that the proGG is based on the issue of exposing ethical issues, even if their tactics and motives are far from that. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

More vague handwaving. Please tell me exactly which of our reliable mainstream sources you are freaming as 'the most heavily biased against GG.' Saying negative things about something is not necessarily 'bias.' Is saying 'drinking poison is bad for you' anti-poison bias? Most of the major publications we have to work with now are not 'anti-GG,' they are pro-reality.

But yes, even the 'most heavily biased' sources say that gamergate claims to be about corruption. But they do not go any further than that, and this article currently does. We're giving equal weight to two points of view that are not equally supported by the sources, and that is a problem. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The issues that there is ethical and corruption problems have been identified by game journalists themselves like Leigh Alexander, etc. They know it exists (maybe not the same problems as claimed by the proGG but they will freely admit they are too close with many publishers for their own good), they want to discuss these issues with concerned gamers and fix them. But 1) they are being attacked when they wave this flag and as a result 2) other sources use this and the fact that the GG side has appeared to overlook a very obvious one , the whole Shadows of Mordor thing that happeened during the GG events, as, per their words, this is only a front over the harassment side. So the claims of ethical problems are fully appropriate for the lead and the body as they are. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

And as I said, the fact that ethical concerns exist does not mean that gamergate's claims that they are about ethics are in any way credible. Gamergate's actual actions, the issues they are actually working against, are well cited as having nothing to do with ethics, and in fact are often cited as being counterproductive if the movement were genuinly concerned with promoting high quality journalism. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not our place to say if their claims are credible or not; it is clear that the issue of ethics has been raisd by these events. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It is, however, our place to accurately report what our sources say. A majority of our sources give far less credence to the claim that gamergate is really about ethics than they do to the strong evidence that it is primarily about silencing women, and it's our responsibility to give those two perspectives the same weight as our sources do. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, you cannot keep conflating actual issues people outside of GamerGate have identified with the dubious ones GamerGate itself has been pursuing. Please stop attempting to do so. Artw (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Game journalists are involved in GG, so yes, these issues are legit in the context of "Yes, there are ethics issues, but the GG side seems to be ignoring these" that numerous recent sources have brought up. There's no conflation here, it's part of the narrative of why many of the press are getting frustrated and calling out on GG for lacking any goals beyond their campaign of harassment (as they say). --MASEM (t) 17:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of this, why isn't much longer our coverage of "legitimate criticism of gaming press' ethics that GG is nevertheless ignoring"? This has been a very common opinion in RSs, that there are severe problems in AAA houses, with some news venues being thinly disguised RP departments, yet GG has been centering their efforts mostly on freelancers and indie developers; many journalists have complained about this and written about it quite extensively. Diego (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic - GajerGate is about harassing games journalists so if Gakes Journalists point out problems in Gakes Journalism they are part of GamerGate? That doesn't make a lick of sense. Artw (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wording. "Drinking poison is bad for you" vs "Drinking poison may cause medical complications or lead to death." So it is "biased" in the sense it's giving the connotation that health complications and/or death are "bad," which is vague, but negative. They aren't either: they're neutral events. AnyyVen (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, we don't say 'misogyny is bad,' do we? We, and our sources, say it exists, just as the health consequences of taking poison do. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I responded to your point. I never suggested that the article said anything about "misogyny is bad." And it's one thing for the sources to say that it exists and another for them to call for the movement to stop. I'm not saying they're wrong, or bad, or any of that, I'm merely saying it's inaccurate to assume neutrality. Nor am I saying that sources need to be neutral, which they don't, but one has to at least be aware of any potential bias. AnyyVen (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Drinking poison isn't really the best parallel, but it makes an argument. Different poisons have different effects on your body, and if you know what you're doing you can ingest certain poisons safely, so for Wikipedia to simply describe poison as "bad" would be vague, inaccurate, and a matter determined entirely by context. Any article source using a term like "bad" while failing to go further in depth would be an opinion piece due to lack of context or factual statements. Likewise, the action of misogyny is determined by context, and there does appear to be acknowledged dispute within a number of sources. As in, "Gamer Gate says it isn't about sexism". We see that enough. Still, though, the article opens by stating "Gamer Gate is controversy concerning moral badness". Probably should be changed. I know reading me say this is getting tiring, but every time I say it, I'm told that removing the vagueness and the bias is "undue weight" somehow. It's not undue weight to just change the article to reflect that the periodicals are the ones positing Gamer Gate as a harassment campaign.

And of course, before anyone objects, I still insist the article should say, "The movement has been widely criticized as misogynist due to ongoing harassment of numerous female critics and developers". Because that is the spot-on truth that all the articles are saying. It's not a destructive change, and it doesn't undermine the information already present in the article. It just removes Wikipedia's voice from the accusations. YellowSandals (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I still don't necessarily agree with your reasoning, but I do concede that Masem's proposal of describing it as a "culture war" gives an instantaneously better picture of the situation vs "a controversy involving [...] misogyny." I also agree with your sentence, at least in spirit, though I still note given the extreme due weight of the misogyny allegations, it will have to feature at least in the first paragraph, if not the second sentence. I also agree it should be able to record the progression of events without much moral commentary, and hopefully the allegations/positions of for/against can be contained in a separate section. AnyyVen (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Numerous sources state that it concerns ethics in gaming journalism and some are indeed included in the lede. The fact so few media outlets are willing to discuss those concerns or acknowledge GamerGate's involvement in bringing those issues to light is a consequence of the fact that the media are not keen on covering criticism of themselves. Even so, we have more than enough sources in the article and elsewhere to justify the current wording. Attempts to dilute it are a product of your own bias. Do not even entertain the notion that somehow you are not biased, because anyone who has seen your comments on this topic can easily attest to you being biased.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Nobody has been able to show GamerGate addressing actual ethics in journalism, not you, not GamerGate, and not their right wing supporters. It's not just "the media" - NOBODY is able to show any substance to this myth. Artw (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That's because Gamer Gate is an angry, disorganized mob of people with their own factionalized interests. When there's no one Gamer Gate, it's virtually impossible to report on what Gamer Gate is or what it wants. However, the proposal in this thread does go to show exactly how wikilawyering has allowed the article to become biased in the first place. The suggestion is to remove mention of any of Gamer Gate's more commonly expressed stances because the reliable sources are dismissing those stances. Except the reliable sources have had to acknowledge those stances to dismiss them, thereby justifying mention of those stances. This "undue weight" claim has been pursued as far as it can go to make the article as biased as possible, and it's frankly ridiculous. Critics of the anti-GG side are being listed under the "Role of Misogyny and Anti-Feminism" section for crying out loud, while the article doesn't even have a "criticisms" or "media response" section. Why? The only reason I keep hearing is "undue weight", and it's a thin argument. To be honest, I think it's undue weight to represent the anti-GG sources as the sole proprietors of factual information and the only position worth mentioning.

Does this Wiki article not terrify anyone a little? The very idea that "moral wrongness" could be the only reason people would form disorganized, angry mobs and attack people. You want to represent it as a fact that these people are morally reprehensible and attacking their fellow humans just because they overwhelmingly hate women? God save us if true. Be neutral for your own sake - everyone has their reasons and you should not drive this article to try to explain them in terms of evil and moral wrongness. YellowSandals (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Nobody has been able to show Gamergate addressing actual concerns, except for getting The Escapist, Destructoid, Kotaku, and Polygon to change their policies, pointing out conflicts of interest with Patreon, showing that the gaming press is far too buddy-buddy through revealing things like the GameJournoPros list, and getting the EIC of Destructoid to step down for <redacted> (which nobody's reporting on, I wonder why). Willhesucceed (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There's enough sources that point to Alexander's blog post about current problems in the industry, and pointing to the Shadows of Mordor promotional thing, to show that the industry knows there are problems. They've opened up as best they can to ask proGGers to participate to help fix. There is no clear effort that shows that offer being taken that can be identified by reliable sources (I'm sure there's a number that are). Ethics are central to the proGG side, but as RS report, how much of that is a sincere concern over just a cover for the tactics otherwise used is in question. --MASEM (t) 19:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no. You cannot use an article about GamerGate not addressing ethical issues as evidence that they are going to address those issues at some hypothetical point. Artw (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Declaring someone you disagree with "biased" is not a substitute for supporting your argument. The preponderance of sources do not uncritically claim that gamergate 'is about ethics: the most they do is say the movement claims to be about ethics, with a majority citing information which indicates that this isn't credible. Can you cite specific sources that you feel support your claims? Don't just say they exist, show me which ones you mean. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that at this point there's no reliable sources describing Gamergate (or, more importantly, the controversy over it) as being about journalistic integrity. It's worth mentioning somewhere in the lead section that some Gamergate-types claim to be fighting over that, but no reliable source really seems to support that that's the core controversy here. Reading the posts above trying to argue otherwise comes across as basically conspiracy-theory stuff ("the media", as a nebulous vaguely defined group, is being attacked by GG, and therefore "the media" is censoring its true message.) But WP has to report on what reliable sources say, not on conspiracy theories about them; we can't ignore all media coverage forever just because someone makes a vague assertion that everyone we consider a reliable source is arrayed against them. And just looking at the reliable sources, there's a clear and broad agreement that Gamergate is an anti-feminist movement with a strong misogynist streak and a history of producing large amounts of harassment against its targets, who are generally female indie developers, gamers, or commentators. --Aquillion (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You could change the intro to describe the debate as: "The Gamergate controversy is an ongoing cultural conflict that arose in August 2014. Beginning with a rumored sex scandal, it later expanded into a much wider dispute garnering broad media attention. The Gamergate movement itself has been widely criticized as misogynist by numerous publications due to an ongoing public harassment of several female game developers and critics."

Given the weight of what most sources are saying, I think something like this would be both neutral and acceptable - however, I'd like to point out that the entire article needs to be re-written because right now the entire thing is not only one-sided, but poorly organized. We need sections that don't try to pin the "role of misogyny" on anyone but rather ones that simply discuss the controversy in a clinical fashion with regards to what has been said and done. YellowSandals (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Phrasing it as a "sex scandal" in any way, even if you're prefacing it with "rumored", is not going to fly. And neither is your constant insistences that the description of the movement as misogynistic be prefaced with "the media thinks...".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You try to get me banned for disagreeing with you, and every change I propose to the wording is shot down because it doesn't include Wikipedia describing the controversy as "misogynist" in Wikipedia's voice. You are a detriment to this article, and I feel you are actively working in bad faith to maintain a bias. If it's not appropriate to mention the allegations of a sex scandal - which have been reported on and which was the start of this controversy - then please suggest a better alternative instead of constantly insisting that nothing needs to change about the slant of this article. Be constructive, Ryūlóng. Stop sniping at everyone. YellowSandals (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith about other users. Anyway, the problem talking about a "rumored sex scandal" is that Wikipedia articles can't be sourced to rumors. We report things as they are described in reputable sources, which seem to universally agree that the Gamergate controversy is about sexism, misogyny, and harassment, and none of which describe it primarily as a sex scandal. Similarly, at least in the lead, it isn't necessary to preface our summary of the article with weasel words about how "numerous publications" agree on this, because every article is (in theory) sourced to numerous reputable publications; the sources themselves are available further down when the article covers the subject in more detail. --Aquillion (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a limit to how many flippant dismissals one user throws at people he disagrees with, and it strains the ability to assume good faith. And as for the alleged sex scandal, it is detailed in the following section regarding the individual who is concerns. The allegations are sourced. But if you want to insist that there's nothing wrong with using Wikipedia to say that a movement is about sexism, misogyny, evil, and the devil because a bunch of journalists think so, then I'm getting pretty burnt out trying to explain why it's biased and why it's not a very objective thing to do. Not even Hitler himself gets this kind of treatment on Wikipedia, but for GamerGate it's just due weight. YellowSandals (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

And honestly, "weasel words", you say. Imagine they weren't calling GamerGate misgoyny, but instead they were calling it disrespectful and petty. Would the Wiki article then describe GamerGate as a "controversy concerning disrespect and ingrained pettiness"? YellowSandals (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

If that's what the reliable sources described it as then yes, it would be called disrespectful and pety. Sources have described the movement as misogynistic and sexist. So Wikipedia reports on that same fact. Just because you and everyone else who has come to Wikipedia to argue the point that it's not about misogyny or that the misogyny is not a major aspect does not change what everyone else calls it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

So riddle me this. You hold this opinion and had a heavy involvement in writing this article. Why do you think it has the biased tag? No good reason? YellowSandals (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I spent more time on this article making sure that the references were formatted correctly than writing anything damning of the movement. You can go through the history to look for yourself instead of casting aspersions left and right.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think the article is labelled biased, Ryūlóng. YellowSandals (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Because editors like yourself who have no clue as to how the English Wikipedia properly works and have a vested interest in the controversy kept complaining that a bias existed for weeks on end and a discussion to add the tag in the first place never came to a proper conclusion to add it, but it was added anyway because the administrator who answered the {{edit requested}} tag took the lack of a consensus as to whether or not the article did not meet WP:NPOV was a consensus that it did not meet NPOV and tagged it. There is a difference between the dictionary definition of neutrality and Wikipedia's neutrality policy. It does not mean that this article is filled with content that suddenly shows a nebulous leaderless movement in a positive light when everything in the mainstream press, and the video game press that they so vehemently hate, points out vast problematic issues with it that consists of harassment and death threats almost exclusively sent to socially prominent women in the indie game dev world or those discussing video games, rather than focusing any sort of energy on their vaguely stated goals of seeking out journalistic integrity by going after anyone who actually has the money to pay for a good review other than their insistence that one woman's sex life had anything to do with a positive review that never existed, or even going after any of the men that have spoken out against them as the women have that are now run out of their homes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

When I entered the Wikipedia page I saw that the neutrality was being questioned. It's not up to you to say if it is fair or not, or teach us the meaning of neutral. Making accusations of vested interest against other editors is also not the best way to foster a discussion.Awaker81 12:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

So what are your current goals for the article, Ryūlóng? As far as I can tell, your opinion is that the article is fine as is, and the best course of action will be to ban all disputing editors and remove the "biased" tag. So far, this has been the approach you've pursued. YellowSandals (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I think my section below concerning six different points I think should be added to the page qualify. And the best course of action is to make sure that single purpose accounts, that is accounts created and utilized for the sole purpose of editing this page and its talk page like yourselves, do not continue to stagnate the article and push a POV that "Gamergate isn't about misogyny so get rid of it in the article and focus on something that we want it to be focused on". You, YellowSandals, have done nothing on this page except pick on the misogyny aspect by making the incredible jump that an article that defines something as having misogynistic tones, as pointed out by reliable sources that aren't the ones that every single Gamergate supporter says is biased against them because they posted "Gamers are dead" pieces and have spent all their time attacking the publications and their largely female writing staff, as meaning that "Gamers are all misogynists" which is never mentioned on this article. The article is neutral according to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. The tag should be removed once the article begins to rely more on news sources like Time, WaPo, NYT, BBC, CNN, etc. and less on all of these sources that are constantly decried as biased for the reasons I previously stated.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You are jumping to conclusion on the single purpose accounts, I just had never felt an article was in a such a poor state before, so I had never bothered to register. This is my login, period, and I would say your accusations aren't exactly a very good first impression about the way Wikipedia welcomes new editors. —Awaker81 05:55, 25 October 2014 (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.

the tag will come off the article around November 6th

The POV tag was first applied around Oct 6th, so I believe a fair deadline for removal will be 1 month from there. Tags are not meant to remain in perpetuity just because a minority doesn't like how an article is presented. So, I'd like to see clear and concise arguments for what exactly one feels is violating WP:NPOV, and what the proposals are to remedy the perceives transgression(s). I'd strongly urge that the proposals be more than vague hand-waves of the "too much misogyny not enough ethics" variety, "why aren't we citing Breitbart more?", and so on. If the proposals do not achieve WP:CONSENSUS by ~Nov 6th, then the proposals shall be considered failed, the tag removed, and we can continue on with normal editing. Tarc (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Last time I checked there was unnecessarily loaded language in the article, it needs to be checked before it's removed. Halfhat (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Then make your case as to why the alleged "loaded language" is so dire that we must alert the general readership to the matter. At any given movement, there are tens of thousands of articles that exist in a state of non-perfection, there are always things to update, issues to address, matters to fix. A tiny, tiny percentage of those are actually slapped with big reader tags. Tarc (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is it encourages someone to go to one side. It's not just non-perfection, it's bias. It makes the article appear to support one view, as a trusted source of factual information this is a big issue, especially when covering an ongoing controversy. Halfhat (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is you haven't done anything to demonstrate bias, you've just claimed it exists. Demonstrate that there is an opinion or perspective being given undue weight, or find well-sourced information to add to 'balance' that supposed bias. Because as it is the closest we've had to an honest justification for the 'bias' tag has been that it's not fair that the majority of sources are so terribly biased against gamergate. Per our policies, that's not actually a problem: if we're discussing the issue the way the sources do and observing WP:WEIGHT wrt minority views, we're fine so far as WP:NPOV is concerned. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You ask me why it'd be a problem, I explain it then you rant about how I haven't shown there is a problem. I was explaining why the loaded language is a problem, and like I said, it needs to be checked, because, as far as I know that hasn't happened since the major changes were made. Ofcourse Masem brought up another load of problems. Halfhat (talk) 09:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have pointed out the biased too many times to count; this article preaches the anti-GG with excess quotes and reiterating the harassment, sexism, and misogynic claims beyond what is needed to make the point, under the guise that "there will never be proGG sources to balance this so this is how we will out". It's extremely easy to see by stepping back and putting yourself in the position of a pro GG person that has not engaged in the harassment but feels there are ethical problems in journalism, and then reading this article to determine if this article is even reasonably fair, fully understanding the press is not giving this equal coverage. It's blatantly wrong, and the fact that you and others have refused mediation and even shooed off the ArbCom request means you are not here to compromise and instead push the blatantly biased point. --MASEM (t) 02:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Specific example: The base work "misog" (misogyny, misogynistic, etc.) is used 36 times on the current page, 8 of them unavoidable in reference sourcing titles. Clearly it has to come up in a few places discussing how the press spoke to their opinion of the attacks, so I can see another 6-8 times as necessary for the narrative . But that still leaves at least 16 repeats of a very negative word just because of the claim that there's no sourcing from the proGG side to counter the claim. "Harassment" is used 49 times, with only 4 times unavoidable in the reference titles. (Granted, the harassment stuff is necessary as a reference term to what happened but there's still an awful lot of extra uses). There is a POV problem with this article that is not supported by WP's policy on being neutral in this type of debate. --MASEM (t) 02:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Given the sources, that seems like due weight. If we are speaking about what RS say, that it's appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Due weight does not mean counting sourcing and then saying our ratio should be at that number; it's how much each viewpoint is given in sources, and it is not the case that the proGG is being ignored to a point we can bias the article and treat the proGG side as FRINGEy. The balance is way off when considering what the articles are still saying. --MASEM (t) 02:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The misogyny and harassment are essentially the only sourceable aspect of this event. There is next to nothing written about gamergate by reliable sources that does not focus primarily or exclusively on its efforts to silence people, mainly women, who have opinions its members don't like. The quotes, as has been pointed out, are the result of endless nitpicking about wording from numerous pro-gamergate pov warriors that have forced to put useful, relevant, cited information in a source's voice instead of in Wikipedia's. It's a symptom of bias, yes, but not the bias you're claiming. I'm sure that for a hypothetical 'non-harassing pro-Gamergater' this article seems 'unfair,' but the same hypothetical person will likely think that media coverage of the issue is 'unfair.' That doesn't change the fact that we have to represent this issue the way our sources do. The 'non-harassing pro-GGer' perspective is not a 'neutral' one, but a heavily biased one, so imagining the article from their perspective is not helpful.

For the record, the mediation requests were denied because there was no evidence of a real, actionable dispute. The editors who created those requests had not shown any good faith efforts to resolve the dispute beyond vague and unhelpful whinging on this talk page that the article is biased. And it was in fact Arbcom who "shood off" the arbcom request. - TaraInDC (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

"The misogyny and harassment are essentially the only sourceable aspect of this event." is burying your head in the sand to anything that might challenge the sanctity of the antiGG side. The journalists have admitted there are ethic issues, they want to talk about them. We can source that. We can source other reasons why gamers are update. The harassment stuff is unavoiding and key to explain the history of events and response, no doubt, but stop pretending that is the only thing that can be talked about. Too many editors show zero care for people on the proGG as human beings and simply are assuming they are trolls; some might but certainly not all. And the reason medication failed was that core players refused to participate, which is a core part of mediation. Next step is ArbCom, which you cannot avoid participation in (assuming the case is taken) --MASEM (t) 02:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Journalists acknowledge there are issues with ethics but they pre-date Gamergate and Gamergate has not gone after them. They have not criticized anything remotely resembling what happened to Jeff Gerstmann. They have not remotely criticized anything resembling Doritosgate. They have spent all of their energy harassing people who may or may not have donated to independent game developers' crowdfunding campaigns or people who were roommates and may have talked about a game. They have been going "Haha we're making these people lose all their advertisement money and now they're bad mouthing their advertisers good job journalists" when journalists shouldn't give a shit about their advertisers. They have been going "We don't care about the story just tell us if it's fun". That's all anyone can determine about the "ethics in journalism" which is still a vague attack on women due to the fact that it's only the women devs and journalists that they're haranguing. We can never "balance" this article to not be against Gamergate because Gamergate has the worst PR there can be. They are being considered by the SPLC as a hate movement. We will never satisfy the Gamergate supporters on this page because we cannot, as a neutrally written encyclopedia that is verified by reliable sources, cannot give undue weight to content that we cannot verify in said reliable sources.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There are several things we can go into - not into great depth - but that do deal with present GG concerns on ethics. An example is that GGs want more objective reviews, which yes, mainstream sources have pointed out this logical fallacy and that you can't review games like you would a car or other utility object. But that's an ethics issue that can be discussed. The trend of "notgames" is another (eg DQ and Gone Home), which again has been countered with just that recent NYTimes opinion piece. There's others like this. You have to take off the blinders that classify all proGGs as those doing the harassing and realize we can build, albeit thin, discussion of what GG is looking for. If, based on what I've read from the KIA Reddit thread, that they are happy with the state of the es.wiki version of Gamergate, which is basically ours but lacking all the quotes and at least giving them a few more sentences to justify their points, then we should be able to do that too. --MASEM (t) 03:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those are examples of the vague and ultimately useless things that gamergate claims to want. But as sources note, they are vague, unactionable claims, and are also given far less attention even by the movement itself than the movement's other, less respecable aims: in other words, if gamergate spends less time talking about ethics than it spends telling everyone it's about ethics, and less time doing either than it does harrassing women, then reliable sources are going to note that, and so must we.

But, regardless, saying you have changes you think should be made and that until they're made the tag must remain isn't helpful. Start doing something - actually providing sources and writing text rather than citing vague 'examples' of things you think should be done - or stop complaining about neutrality. We're not going to keep the tag in place until someone else carries out the desires of the editors who think it should remain. Anyone who is not actively working on specific changes to this article to correct what they say is bias has no place demanding that the tag remain. -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I know I could go in and make edits to remove quotes and fix other things that are excess antiGG propaganda, but 1) everyone editing this article needs to be aware that putting too much antiGG quotes and position statements is a POV issue so that we don't have to come back and re-edit to bring it back, and so that we're all working on the same narrative (given the perchance for certain editors to revert without understanding the bias issue) and 2) things are still changing in the GG situation that I don't know how best we should write the "analysis" part of the narrative that I would not want to touch anything in those areas unless there's clear placement for the information. --MASEM (t) 04:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The only reason "antiGG quotes" are prevalent is because the "proGG" editors have fought tooth and nail to ensure that every single statement by any single journalist is attributed to that journalist and not treated like any actual statement on any other topic. And what could be possibly changing in GG?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely false. The excessive quotes are added by you and the antiGG-slanted editors without any impulse needed from the proGG side. There are a few quotes in the main narrative that is necessary to assert facts (the Quinn/Grayson stuff) but the bulk of quotes added beyond that is quotefarming to villainize the proGG side as much as possible. --MASEM (t) 04:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Because we have to pussyfoot around everything we add to make sure that we don't piss off people.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Tarc starts by dictating terms, which he is in no position to carry out, and then suggests we need consensus on there being POV issues when the reality is a lack of consensus on NPOV is what really matters in this instance. I can say that the recent spate of editing since the page got unlocked leaves little room for removing the tag. Ryulong and Baranof in a series of nonsensical edits have seen fit to slant this article so far towards their own POV that it is now just one giant hit piece masquerading as an encyclopedia article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Is that because I added a quote from Chris Kluwe? Everyone external to this dispute is seeing that the "bias" does not exist, or rather the "bias" is simply how due weight turns the pro-GG POV into a minority view.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I know I could go in and make edits to remove quotes and fix other things that are excess antiGG propaganda, but Why make constructive suggestions when you can just complain, right? If you don't attempt to prove that the supposed bias exists instead of just claiming over and over that it does, nobody can ever prove that your arguments don't hold water! If you're not interested in actually explaining exactly what your problem is and trying to fix it then there's no point in you saying anything at all. Starting an RFC to try to establish consensus that there's 'bias' in the article when you have not lifted a finger to show us the bias or explain how you'd like it to be remedied is nothing but dramamongering. Getting a lot of people with little Wikipedia experience outside of this article to agree with your claims that the article is biased is not going to keep this article tagged when you haven't even deigned to make any suggestions. Stop wringing your hands about how the article is biased and somebody should do something and actually do something. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I've talked and demonstrated specific elements with the bias plenty of times, you've chosen to ignore these arguments and claim there's no bias on those changes. And because this article is under sanctions, instead of getting into edit wars over changes (which I am 99% certain would be reverted), starting an RFC to get wider input (given that all other means to get dispute resolution have been rejected by those that claim there is no bias) is the least disruptive way to determine if there's consensus that there's a problems. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No you haven't. You've said there are 'too many quotes,' that we're 'piling on' by observing WP:WEIGHT, and that because there is very little in the way of 'pro-GG' sources to choose from we must limit our use of 'anti-GG' sources (that is, reliable, mainstream sources that have the audacity to call a spade a spade). Those aren't specifics. Those are generalities. What you have done for the most part is start beating your 'piling on!' drum in completely unrelated discussions, dragging them off course but never actually making any concrete suggestions that can be discussed or countered. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

BS, those are very specific issues (and I did in fact point to specific quotes and additions in some cases). You clearly have no interest in trying to work towards consensus here. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Where did you make specific suggestions for changes to the article? -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

In a previous discussion (which you criticized me for the same lack of specificity) I pointed out at least one quote that was a problem. When other edits proceeded to add other quotes or changes that were a problem I called those out here in question. But my point has been that it's not just one or two, it's throughout the article, and clearly in the additions since the removal of protection, that needs to be considered as a whole, since removing some quote affects the structure of the article too. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

When called on your persistent failure to provide specific suggestions you pointed out one bloody quote. Yes, truly you have worked tirelessly to resolve this dispute. The fact remains that you have called this article biased a lot, frequently in unrelated discussions with very little effort to justify those claims, let alone rectify them. Your signal to noise ratio is abysmal: lots of complaints and next to no constructive suggestions. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Disagree on taking out the tag, if anything the article gets more POV by the hour. I expect by November 6th the article opening with something like "GamerGate is a bunch of manchildren who are literally worst than ISIS" Loganmac (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Columbia Journalism Review

http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/gawker_bullying.php - Gawker and bullying http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/gamergate.php?page=all - Gamergate

Willhesucceed (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

2nd one is already used in the article. Do you have a suggestion for how to use the first one? The article already discusses the bullying tweet, and most of the article doesn't appear to be about Gamergate. Strongjam (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like there is more quotes from Quinn then needed

I'm not sure, but it seems like just about every topic has her opinion, it seems excessive. Halfhat (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you not understand that the only reason GamerGate exists is because of Zoe Quinn?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

She was the root cause, but the case isn't entirely about her. Why are you so condescending in all of your edits? Agent Chieftain (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Because myself and other editors of this page have had to answer questions like this constantly for the past 3 months.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

So? While I can understand your frustration, it is not an excuse to behave badly. After all, I am not aware that Wikipedia guidelines about civility include the clause '-If you are frustrated and irritated, feel free to stop being civil'. Omegastar (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Quinn was NOT "the cause" - she was "the target". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

She was both. Among other things, her comments about transphobia (which I think were good-natured, if misguided in context) were a handy representation of how ridiculously politicized the game industry has become, so some Gamergaters latched onto her for that. Either way, being "the cause" of harassment against other celebrities doesn't necessarily imply that she took this position willingly or that they deserved it, only that she contributed in some indirect way to targeting of someone besides herself. Tezero (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen one GamerGater give any shit about what Zoe thinks about transgender people because since the beginning it was attacks on her sex life.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Can i get a link, i have not heard of this Retartist (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that every section without a major connection to her needs her opinions, she deserves mention, but it's currently just excessive bloat. Halfhat (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Second Paragraph of "The role of journalists in the controversy"

The second paragraph of the "The role of journalists in the controversy" section is entirely sourced from a self-published source on medium by Ryan Smith. I believe it's the last WP:SPS left in the article. Can it be removed or sourced from secondary sources? Strongjam (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it has been noted in more RS sources as an example of a useful essay (but I would have to double check). If RSes have called attention to this, then we technically can use it, though we should cite the RS quoting it. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: I'm not having much luck finding any references to the essay outside of blogs and etc. I'd like to use something like this instead but I'm pretty sure that would be WP:OR since it's pre-GG. Strongjam (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've looked too , and I can't find a high quality RS that points back to this essay. As such I removed it (earlier) since that really didn't have any core importance to the article and being an SPS , difficult to justify inclusion if no one else has pointed to that. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Gawker is toxic to advertisers

http://adland.tv/adnews/gawker-toxic-brands-who-partner-them/1291467968#7SJBLOuUTu9WRhpZ.99

http://adage.com/article/digital/gamergate-puts-advertisers-a-bad-spot/295555/

Willhesucceed (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Are either considered RS? If so I think they'd warrant a short sentence. Halfhat (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Adland is a community weblog, so I think it fails as WP:SPS. Adage might be useable though. Strongjam (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You should look into the pedigree of that weblog and who runs it. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Eh, actually, don't. Don't know why I still bother coming here. I'll rectify that fault. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing against Dabitch, but unless a secondary source weights it for us we should ignore it. It's not up to use to decide who is notable. Strongjam (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's often said that journalists should not give a shit about their advertisers and that GamerGate. This is the crux of actual ethics in journalism. This is why Jeff Gerstmann was fired from Eurogamer after his not gleaming review of Kane & Lynch. Advertisers had too much power.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

He was terminated from Gamespot not Eurogamer. Related this WaPo article makes the connection that this type of action helps to create the sort of atmosphere where the writers are beholden small motivated set of their readership. "Should similar groups mobilize around other types of news, and should advertisers be persuaded by then, the possibilities for chilling speech are pretty grim. Operation Disrespectful Nod is advocating for a future where news organizations only print stories that mollify their readers." Not sure if that's worth adding to the section on the operation though. Strongjam (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

AdAge is an RS as a major publication in the world of advertizing, however, when I read that article, I saw little that could be used - it basically summarizes everything on the Intel/Adobe/Gawker stuff we have, and then is more of advice tells companies that advertize that it's better not get involved at all w/in GG. I'm not sure how we can really work in that last point, unless we get more sources that talk about how the general approach/opinion of major businesses in reference to GG should be handled. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Muscat Hoe's removal of "jokingly"

To all sources cited in the paragraph:

• Topping their most-wanted list, at present, is Gawker Media’s Biddle, who tweeted a string of jokes about Gamergate on Thursday. In context, at least, the jokes were an obvious — if tongue-in-cheek — commentary on the movement’s well-documented, often hateful, idiocy. Critics construed them as an endorsement for bullying.
• Gamergate supporters were protesting a series of tongue-in-cheek tweets by Gawker-affiliated Valleywag editor Sam Biddle, jokingly calling to "bring back bullying" of nerds.
• These posts came after other jokes and criticism Biddle had posted about #GamerGate.
• Biddle, who is frequently sarcastic on Twitter, told Re/code, "I have literally not seen a single person who is not a GamerGate supporter who did not get that I was very obviously joking. Not a single one."

For this reason, I am restoring the word "jokingly".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Correction, I have replaced it with "tongue-in-cheek" as per the wording of the above quotations.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem getting people's opinions on this. My issue is we're claiming with 100% certainty that the tweets were made in jest when that's something that is impossible to confirm. The sources are the opinions of the authors and we can say that "So and so believes Biddle made the tweets in jest" or "Biddle later claimed they were in jest" (if we have sourcing), but we cannot claim straight up that the tweets were made in jest and expect this article to follow WP:NPOV. All we know is that the tweets were made. If one of the persons making death threats was arrested and claimed in court that their threats were only in jest, we wouldn't write that as if it were fact. Muscat Hoe (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are multiple news articles that seem to acknowledge their insincere nature.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is fine to include but it's opinion and therefore needs to be attributed to someone. I haven no issue with the current form:

In mid-October 2014, Sam Biddle, an editor for the Gawker affiliate Valleywag, made a series of tweets he claimed were a tongue-in-cheek call for a return to bullying of nerds.

Muscat Hoe (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe "claimed" would be a problem with WP:SAY. Would "stated" be a good replacement?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd think something along the lines of "made a series of tweets calling for a return to bullying of nerds that he later said were made tongue-in-cheek." Of course I dont English well, so . . . Q ^{T C} 04:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, only one tweet mentioned it. Maybe we need to be clearer still.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If somebody can dig up where he mentioned it was made tongue-in-cheek or jokingly, can probably phrase it better, but if all we have is third parties saying he didn't mean it derisively, not sure how much better it can be phrased. Q ^{T C} 04:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've found something and added it to the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's pretty good. As far as I can tell it was only two tweets so we could probably say that instead of 'a series of tweets' Muscat Hoe (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

According to sources, there were other tweets that preceeded it that set a context for insincerity in meaning. The "Bring Back Bullying" ones were just what sparked the fuse.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

See. This. This is why the article is biased. You fight tooth and nail against phrasing that relieves presupposed guilt on GamerGate, but when someone on the other side of the controversy puts their foot in their mouth, now you want to be extremely careful to maintain the most neutral possible wording. "Said" versus "claimed" is more neutral and the correct way to approach the wording, but this is very frustrating to watch you jockey for support to take this care for someone on your side of the fence while you accuse bloody murder of the other. YellowSandals (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No. I am pointing out that all the sources say that the "Bring Back Bullying" tweet was preceeded by several other Tweets where it was more obvious he was not being serious but GamerGate just latched onto the bullying one to make themselves martyrs. And I am arguing against using "claimed". You need to stop assuming bad faith.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Article suffers from a degree of Recentism

I think this article suffers from a degree of Recent-ism.

This is a common flaw in articles about current events and issues. It is hard to know what aspects of the topic are really important to mention, and which are more trivial (and can be glossed over or cut entirely). However, as time passes this usually becomes a bit clearer. Now that Gamergate is a few months old... I would encourage editors to seriously consider a complete re-write... to re-focus the article so it takes a more historical perspective. Indeed, I suspect that about half of the article could probably be cut... or at least seriously trimmed down. Blueboar (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd wait until it's either became over or at least a more steady situation, it's still changing a lot. Still I agree there's a lot that should be cut. Halfhat (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The thing with Gamergate is that it is a current event that for the past several weeks had very high profile events take place. Now that there's a lull we should be able to properly write about what had happened.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

New York mag on meeting with GGers.

[45] Haven't had chance to parse. --MASEM (t) 19:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Despite the tone it does a pretty good job of explaining the GamerGate position. Nice find. Halfhat (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's more about 8chan dwellers and the no true Scotsman defense, not really seeing much new. Tarc (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's reporting in mainstream source, so no need to wave it off. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

How about adding something like "One concern expressed by a supporter of GamerGate was that videogames could become "watered down" making reference to pop music at the time."Halfhat (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ethics seems largely absent in favour of fighting "SJWs". Artw (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Article protected again?

This is getting ridiculous. There is no way that we can work on this article if it keeps getting protected because some new POV pushing editor comes onto Wikipedia to argue that "there's a bias because I feel this negatively describes me I mean the pro-Gamergate point of view". Protecting it for three weeks now? is going to cause as much damage as the previous 2 week protection was when a lot of shit hit the fan and we could not actively change the article to cover it because of he constant bickerng going on on the talk page as a result of the constant intrusions by Redditors with accounts they just remembered that they had, particularly when Loganmac keeps making Reddit threads on the actions he disagrees with on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged Dreadstar to give a fuller reason, as when I look at the history, I'm not seeing anything that screams out immediately as a problem that I could easily see as edit warring; there might be other reasons though. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a report on WP:AN3 for the page. Might be something related to that. For the record I think most of those reverts are valid. All those silly 'who' and 'citation needed' templates are pretty much just vandalism Strongjam (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Usually if that's the reason, the AN3 closing admin will indicate that. That might be the case, that's why I'm checking. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The report at AN3 (Tutelary reporting me for actions taken over 12 hours ago now) should not be a reason that we shut this page down, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• You folks edit war and either the article gets protected or some of you get blocked - or both. I'll let AN3 sort out any potential blocks, but I'm not letting this article be disrupted by edit warring. Is that 'full' enough Masem? If not, then feel free to take it to WP:RFPP or try to convince me the edit warring is over - even though there's an active AN3 report on this article. Dreadstar ☥ 18:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  But we can't keep protecting the page for weeks at a time. This is a current event that is drawing in a lot of meatpuppetry and general disruption from offsite because they count the one word in this article as a direct attack on who they are. And that's not an "active AN3 report". It's stale by over 12 hours and only being pushed forward by a disruptive user who is out to get me despite not knowing anything about the rules he is saying I've violated.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  Just FYI, they're active until they're closed, you don't get to make the judgment, admins do. Dreadstar ☥ 19:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  Actually, we can. if something is so important that it needs to be added to the article, then put up an Edit request. And I'd suggest to you that you not engage in edit warring. Dreadstar ☥ 19:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  Having to revert multiple users on multiple subjects that were all under discussion on the talk page, including a user who insisted that we violate BLP by identifying anonymous authors of content cited in a reliable source, should not result in me being in any form of trouble.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  There are very few exemptions to 3RR, they're listed at WP:3RRNO. If you're claiming an exemption, then put it clearly in the edit summary and on the talk page, and then get help from an admin or at ANI. Dreadstar ☥ 19:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• (Ec)I'm just asking because it is not clear where the edit warring is from just looking at the history page. (When it has been protected in the past due to edit warring, it was clear as day). Obviously, yes, there's going to be tons of edits that will be conflicting changes, but that's not the same as outright reverts, and that's not readily apparent. There's 14 "undid"s over the last 100 edits/24hr, but not back and forth >1RR type things, which is why full prot (without considering the AN3 issue in place) seems overkill at the moment. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  I'll be happy to unprotect as soon as the AN3 is closed. Dreadstar ☥ 19:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've closed out the AN3 as stale, no reverts in 15 hours or so; and I've changed protection on the article to allow auto-confirmed editing. No more edit warring, or else. Dreadstar ☥ 19:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

IMO editors need to be given a bit of leeway in keeping this article in check. Gamergate is being warred over all across the internet at this point, and the tetchy socks, SPA, and sleeper accounts have identified this article as their last venue to get their fading/failing point-of-view out into the open. Tarc (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to help as best I can within policy. To that end, it would be helpful if everyone's edits and comments were super-clean, very clear and well documented, with appropriate escalations. But I know there's a lot of frustration on these articles. Dreadstar ☥ 19:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've suggested earlier that if we could all self-impose ourselves on a 1RR-type limits, and evoking BRD more (unless we're in the clear obvious EW exceptions), that would help not require any further protection. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Seconding Tarc. This article is going to need a LOT more admin attention if regular editors are being disallowed from reverting disruptive edits. TBH lack of decent admin attention is what brought us to this point in the first place. Artw (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, this Wikipedia article is not Yavin IV facing down the threat of a planet-killing Deathstar. There is not a last refuge of rebel scum trying to sink the only shot they have before they get wiped from the face of the universe forever. It is not a battle of good versus evil when numerous people are losing their jobs due to the ugliness of the controversy, an involved website is bleeding ad partners, and the majority of accusations wobble crazily across a spectrum of ideological viewpoints. Like it or not, in spite of people saying the controversy is dying, it's been going on for months and is still going. I agree with one of the previous posters that the article should be re-written, but this time with a minimalistic approach and something of an objective historical timeline. People with no stake what-so-ever in the debate have been remarking on how confusing and thoroughly useless this article is. If you think GamerGate is dead, you're obviously not seeing the entire conflict. YellowSandals (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Evacuate? In our moment of triumph. I think you overestimate their chances. Sorry I couldn't help myself. Halfhat (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Dreadstar has no relation to Star Wars or the Deathstar, as I make clear on my user page. Dreadstar ☥ 21:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, but see, that's exactly what a cleverer Deathstar would say! "Deathstar? No, no. This is a... satellite. For television. Please do not run or shoot projectiles down our air vents." YellowSandals (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh it is indeed not dying and still going on; firmly and decisively into the misogynist/harassment camp. The dying/going refers to the "but ethics", which is slowly winding down to a footnote. We follow the sources. Tarc (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You, Ryulong, and North have been telling me non-stop that GamerGate never stood for anything but misogyny and that nobody worth referencing thinks otherwise. You're not admitting that there was, at some point, maybe some chance that GamerGate exists for reasons beyond intentional immorality? You're not saying calling GamerGate misogynistic is an opinion or anything capable of rising or falling, I hope. Not after all the fighting on that topic. YellowSandals (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Here you are wrong. None of us have said this. We have simply been saying that the preponderance of reliable sources point out that Gamergate is known for the misogynistic attacks rather than its desire to root out corruption in video games journalism because there are very little sources out there that give it the time of day. For that reason, Wikipedia cannot cover it in the extent that you or others want it to.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

So is misogyny not a neutral word? You keep saying that all the news articles use this slur, so Wikipedia has to use it too. Directly, in Wikipedia's voice. Previously, you argued that there was no debate that this slur was accurate and applied, objectively, to GamerGate. If it's just kind of a vague slur, it seems weird to use it to say that's what the whole controversy is about, doesn't it? I assume if it's factual enough to state in Wikipedia's voice, surely it's not an opinion that could rise or fall depending on the public's perspective of both the word and the context the word is used in. YellowSandals (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

How is "misogyny" a slur? How in any sense of sanity can you be making yourself to be a victim here?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

What. You just call people "misogynist", "sinner", "degenerate", or other negative things, and that's not a slur on those people? Is this seriously where our disconnect is at? You don't think that "misogynist" is a slur? YellowSandals (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

When did society go downhill so far that telling people they hate or disrespect women wasn't seen as a bad thing. And for that matter, Ryūlóng, what is the deal with female supporters of GamerGate? They got the "internalized misogyny" or what? YellowSandals (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that our resident SPAs are not testing the waters with repeated changes to the lede. Artw (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Heavily biased...

Doing a websearch to find out what "Gamergate" referred to exactly, I come across two good explanations, but as usual I go to Wikipedia too... ...only to find an article obviously written to promote feminism. The feminist editing of Wikipedia is destroying Wikipedia's credibility as an unbiased source. This is an emberassment. "ingrained issues of sexism and mysogyny" in the second sentence, jesus christ... 129.240.71.121 (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Read the archives and assorted dispute resolution threads Retartist (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has never been an unbiased source. We merely had some standards to write in a clinical, detached style. As you can see above, those are not valued much any more, either. Diego (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Diego, just let them have the article. The only thing they're doing is embarrassing themselves and Wikipedia. Go edit something else or contribute your time somewhere it's deserved. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort Diego, you were one of the only neutral editors in the beginning Loganmac (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You have to remember, we can't go off our own observations, only what the RSs are saying, and they are largely anti. The article has some other bias issues, and it's a work in progress, but ultimately we have to go off reliable soures, and to some extent echo them. Halfhat (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this article is biased, but not towards the feminist perspective. It's biased towards the perspective of mainstream reliable sources such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. Pro-gamergate sources are much more heavily represented in this article than feminist sources, unless you count Christina Hoff Sommers as a feminist (which most people don't). Kaldari (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Even granting you that, a lot of the article needs rewording to make it less loaded. Further you cannot deny there is a conflict and so atleast two "sides" you can't create a descriptive account only looking at one of them. Halfhat (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. Our article on Evolution doesn't show both sides; our article on Heliocentrism doesn't show both sides. Our role is to report what reliable sources say. Obviously different people might characterize anything in our articles differently; but something like "this topic is categorized one way by the New York Times and the Washington Post, and another way by this random blogger" is not encyclopedic wording. If the mainstream coverage is biased or incorrect on a topic, then it's biased or incorrect; if scientific journals are wrong about something, then they're wrong. But Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is not the place to go to try and correct what you feel to be errors in mainstream coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not buying this argument. Have a look at the article on Creationism. The article does not endorse creationist claims, but it also largely free from language that is clearly denunciatory toward creationism. There is no such attempt at balance or neutrality in the current version of the Gamergate article. This is especially egregious, as the controversy is not about scientific fact, but about political differences that are far more subjective, and far less amenable to any claim of either side being "right" in any objective sense.

More generally, there are two thing wrong here - several editors are problematically arguing from a positon of majoritarianism rather than NPOV, that is, if coverage is largely negative and hostile in tone, than this article must be negative and hostile to reflect that, otherwise this article would be endorsing a "fringe" view. There is also no distinction being made between *editorial* commentary on Gamergate and actual journalism. Editorial sources should be in a section on "reception" or "opinion", not as a source for factual claims. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikileaks

"others were more critical of the tweets, questioning how the various links to news articles and YouTube videos they contained could even be related to GamerGate at all" can anyone tell where this is come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javier2005 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Btw I thought ryulong was finally banned, why is he still here? Javier2005 (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

First, there is already a section on this talk page discussing WikiLeaks. Second, did you even look at this which is the reference right at the end of the sentence you're contesting? Let me pull a direct quote:

So how are members of Gamergate receiving it? "This is beautiful," wrote a Redditor who posted it to Kotaku In Action. "Wonder how they'll explain this one. 'Fighting for global freedom of information is now misogynistic!'" said another. But as with everything in Gamergate, not everyone was on board. "Can someone explain to me what these calls for assassination have to do with SJWs or GG?" one person asked. Someone else pointed out that the wording made it sound like social justice warriors inside Gamergate wanted to assassinate Assange. "This is the most tenuous link to GamerGate and 'SJWs' I've seen yet," said another commenter. "The threat image that Assange links to comes from a small conservative paper writing in 2010. No link to games, feminism or even corruption."

I summarized this as

While some supporters of GamerGate were enthusiastic for WikiLeaks' endorsement of their campaign, other supporters were more critical of the tweets, questioning how the various links to news articles and YouTube videos they contained could even be related to GamerGate at all.

And I'm not banned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

so are you saying that reddit and "kotaku in action" is a reliable source? Javier2005 (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that The Verge is a reliable source because the author is reporting on what he saw on Reddit. The Verge is being cited directly on this page. Not Reddit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

but still, "some" supporters and "other" supporters. I want to know WHO are them. The who tag should be kept. And please don't send me messages to my personal Twitter account Javier2005 (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

They are anonymous "gamergate supporters". Their identities are not relevant to this article to require the {{who}} tag. And don't accuse me of that kind of shit. Loganmac's Twitter was publically posted on Wikipedia when he decided to take the dispute on Wikipedia there. So long as you don't do the same, there won't be any "threat" of being told to "learn to fucking read".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

When we are reflecting and attributing to a reliable source that identifies "some" and "others" we can appropriately use "some" and "others" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Javier2005, stop demanding that we identify people being quoted when they are not specifically identified by the source. There is no reason for these tags.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

are you threatening me with posting my Twitter account on Wikipedia? Are you kidding me? Javier2005 (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Do not put words in my mouth and keep to the topic. Again, Wikipedia cannot and does not need to identify the people who are being vaguely referenced on The Verge's article and therefore on Wikipedia as they are not public figures.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

"Loganmac's Twitter was publically posted on Wikipedia when he decided to take the dispute on Wikipedia there. So long as you don't do the same, there won't be any "threat" of being told to "learn to fucking read"." This is a threat Javier2005 (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Another editor posted a link to a tweet Loganmac had made that was attacking him and I unfortunately decided to respond. So long as history does not repeat itself, there won't be any problems. That is not a threat. Now perhaps you should read what I said more carefully so I don't have to repeat myself and you don't have to pretend to be a victim.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't pretend to be a victim, even though you tried to get me banned during you infamous witchhunt. Javier2005 (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You're still here, aren't you?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the rule, exactly, on disruptive behavior. I've seen you praised for "considerable restraint" and "keeping your cool" for merely not insulting people on occasion. It take it an editor can get away with a great deal of negative behavior if they have some veterancy. I think you've been given more freedom with this article than any other editor, to the issue where there's little point in editing anything if you don't approve of it. My normal approach to biased articles is to simply re-write and leave, maintaining informational bits but removing purple prose and emotional belabors. Since I stepped into this thread, though, I haven't felt any such attempt would stand more than fifteen minutes with your watchful eye here. YellowSandals (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's the thing. This article isn't biased the way that Wikpedia considers things. You may think it is because despite the many ways you've been saying that you're a neutral voice in this, I can't really think of anything you've done here other than attempt to push the pro-Gamergate POV. The way Gamergate wants neutrality is different from how Wikipedia's rules and regulations treat neutrality as recognized in verifiable sources. Because the Gamergate point of view is pretty much only found in various self-published sources, extreme right wing blogs and websites that don't necessarily meet the guidelines of WP:RS. Not to mention many of these pro-Gamergate sources contain content and allegations that go against the WP:BLP policy. But that has not stopped several editors who have recently come to Wikipedia to state their point of view to adhere to that policy, considering that several editors have had their comments expunged from public view. Such as yourself last week on this very page or various editors to the Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian articles. We are all walking on egg shells here, but some people just want to keep at it despite consensus on Wikipedia, and in the media, being against them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

We have, on this very page, a discussion demonstrating a lack of consensus. You think you're in the majority because you don't hear anyone else. You aren't listening to anything or looking around you. When I proposed removing the details about "journalistic integrity" from the lead if you would just let me say there are concerns of misogyny instead of, "Yes, totally misogyny is the thing here and that's the objective truth", you accused me of pro-GamerGate bias. This is how deep your head is buried. I could remove the only consistent stance GamerGate has expressed from the lead of the article, and you'd think I was biased because I didn't call them misogynists. And you get away with this! You openly express this attitude and get congratulated for your patience! It's disgusting, honestly. YellowSandals (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I mean think about it. You gathered up, what. Forty names? Forty names to ban for being against the "consensus"? Wikipedia could ban forty users, or it could ban Ryūlóng. YellowSandals (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That's because every single one of those names on the list had done nothing on Wikipedia in the past several months other than engage in this content dispute that has been fostering off of the website in that same period of time. I expressly omitted editors that I knew were on Wikipedia and edited articles other than anything involved in this petty dispute. And I've lost my patience with having to see the same arguments on the talk page day in and day out that the article is biased because of the word "misogyny" being used in the lead. The constant complaints about the adjective being used to describe the length the misogyny has existed and so on and so forth. In this thread, Javier2005 wanted us (that is Wikipedia) to expressly identify the people being quoted in a reliable source because he thought that the summarization and paraphrasing that I had done to write the section was not clear enough, when the identities of the quoted people were not given in the source. He constantly asked "who" these people were when it was clearly stated in the sentence long before there were any attempts to try to address his concerns, but he kept going at it and demanding a clarification for something that did not exist. No one should have to sit through this but volunteers like myself, Masem, Tarc, NorthBySouthBaranof, TaraInDC, Dreadstar, TheRedPenOfDoom, The Devil's Advocate, Tutelary have to sit through this and try to explain to editors like you how Wikipedia is supposed to work rather than the grand plans you have to make this page in your image rather than the actual neutrality that Wikipedia stands for.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You keep getting new accounts coming in to tell you that "misogyny" is a negatively charged word to be throwing around in supposedly factual statements, and, as I understand, you're mad because they're too dumb to realize the editor with the most weight isn't going to listen. And this is what's really tragic. They keep popping in because they think Wikipedia is supposed to be really open and objective, that the website will respect them, and you want them to wise up to the fact that it isn't and it won't. At least not now. YellowSandals (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If 50 sources that aren't Kotaku, Polygon, and others say that the acts of a movement that has attacked women for being women and ignored men unless they bothered to get in their way of women as "misogynistic" then Wikipedia can present that same information. If several entities share the same opinion then that's generally a consensus and no number of Gamergaters who feel that they are being slighted can really change that unless they actually make a decent name for themselves in the media.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

100% wrong. We can present that information with statements to be that it is what the bulk of press sites have stated, but we cannot state this as a fact in Wikipedia's voice, because no one has produced conclusive evidence that would meet a rigorous analysis (like a scientific review or a legal decision), so it remains a supposition. This article doesn't quite say that, but is toeing that line to a point of being a problem. We cannot act like the press's opinion is "right" and the means to base the rest of the article. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

length discussion

I feel this article is getting too long, and thus we should try to avoid anything long winded wording. It's still quite a niche article and is already really pretty long and still growing. Halfhat (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTPAPER.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

My point was that it is already big and if it became more widely reported, which seems at least likely, with the way things are going it could become insane. Halfhat (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

At some point, the article will be further summarized to remove some larger quotes and such. But there's no real problem yet.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no real length issues, and should this continue to gain coverage as the same pace, it will be a matter of triming back to the more fundamental pieces. --MASEM (t) 00:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)