Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

What Is the Ethics Issue?

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 is my understanding that so-called Gamergate supporters say that there is an issue about journalistic ethics. What is the ethics issue? My understanding is that so-called Gamergate supporters are defenders of the video game culture which they see as under attack by the mainstream media. The only ethical issue that is obvious to me is harassment and death threats against feminist critics, but that is on the other "side" of the controversy. What is the ethics issue? What do the so-called Gamergate supporters say is unethical about coverage of the video game culture by the mainstream media? I understand that there are issues about bias in reporting. However, it seems to me that claims of unethical reporting are stronger than claims of biased reporting. What is the ethical issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss GamerGate. Halfhat (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:RS the "ethics issue" is a cover story for the harrassment of women. Primary it consists of conspiracy theories revolving around Zoe Quinn. We should not be discussing GamerGate in terms of actually being about ethics per WP:FRINGE. Artw (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

100% wrong per NPOV. It is claimed the ethics issue is a front, but there is no fundamental statement (like a scientific report or a legal document) that supports this. As such we will continue to treat that claim as a popular opinion in the press, but absolutely not as fact. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian: The recent uproar – said to be over ethics in journalism but focused mostly on targeting outspoken women who aren’t journalists at all – is just the last, desperate gasp of misogynists facing an unwelcoming future." , The Telegraph "#GamerGate: the misogynist movement blighting the video games industry" , The IB Times Any lingering doubt over whether the Gamergate movement is dedicated to anything other than misogyny and intimidation was eliminated early Thursday when Felicia Day’s personal information was dumped online., Time: Misogynist Online Abuse Is Everyone’s Problem — Men Included , Huff Po: They are facing, as activist Melissa McEwan put it, terrorist misogyny." , Vox Angry misogyny is now the primary face of #GamerGate, The LA Times: "It's time to silence 'gamergate,' end the misogyny in gaming culture" again, we have pretty much reached the point where the verdict is in fact in -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Quoting directly from the policy you cite:

"When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion. Thus we might write: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre.[1]". We do not write: "John Doe is the best baseball player". The inclusion of opinions is subject to weight policy, and they should be backed up with an inline citation to a reliable source that verifies both the opinion and who holds it." YellowSandals (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

where exactly is there ANY, let alone SERIOUS discussion/distension? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, what. Did you not hear that Gamergate involves some controversy? You've been here all this time. YellowSandals (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Why, yes, yes it does. Misogynist harassment is controversial. Claiming that harassment is "about ethics" is controversial. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Every source you name frames it as an opinionated claim, not fact. Claims we will obviously include, but will not restate the context of the claim in WP's voice. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Kaciemonster asked about this earlier and you didn't respond, but what realistic source would you accept for this? There's not going to be a scientific paper on the subject because this isn't a scientific question and you're not going to have a legal dispute that results in a judge saying "yeah, it's really all about ethics in game journalism". So what realistic end game is there for this? Protonk (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The realistic end game is to impartially state points of view, following the policy of due weight, of course, and then to attribute those points of view to the groups or people that hold them. Exactly as Wiki policy stipulates. YellowSandals (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The analysis of who makes up GG to make an objective assessment of whether they are misogynistic or not is likely going to come from researchers in the social studies area. It has been said that GG is an ideal petri dish for those type of researchers and there are bound to be papers for years trying to analyze the motivation and drive. They will perform their surveys, use statistics and other tests to make conclusions, and present it via a peer-reviewed journal, at which point if those papers claim the majority of GG supporters are misogynistic, then we can start thinking of it as fact. Another possible avenue for such a study would be something that is more proficient at public polling like the Pew Researcher Center, who can do a similar type of analysis. But key is that they are looking at the membership and not the actions. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

(e/c)The most repeated claim is that developers are too close to the games publication journalists and are getting good coverage because of the relationships. The reliable sources note that the actions under the gamergate tag focus almost entirely upon small indie developers (most often only the female developers) and completely ignore the industry giants who lavish games journalists with gifts and parties and consoles and their publications with massive promotional ad campaigns or the actual journalists who have allegedly committed these ethics breaches.

Some of the complaints also involved crowdfunding sites where journalists would make nominal contributions/investments to get on mailing lists about developments and access to early release /pre-release versions to review. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

there has also been some effort to frame as an "ethics" issue coverage and reviews of games that include social commentary aspects such as the portrayal of women. the position apparently was " ethical coverage" of games would apparently be limited to "objective" things such as graphics capabilities and ease of controls and not "subjective" commentary. that line has also been roundly dismissed by the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a great question that a lot of people have been asking. GamerGate hasn't really been able to articulate any serious ethical issue that anyone outside the movement considers valid. As per TRPoD, most common has been the argument that video game reviews should be "objective," which is a contradiction in terms. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not that nobody outside the movement has acknowledged Gamergate's reported concerns. It's that certain editors here dismiss those concerns and have been pruning them from the article. Even though a few periodicals have gone on record for changing their policies in response to the ethics concerns. This article has gotten so bad, I'm not even sure how accurate most of the actually factual info is anymore. If a single source reported that Gamergate was sacrificing pigs to summon the devil, we'd have a whole paragraph devoted to it and a novel's worth of debating on the talk page to keep it in.

Also, "lots" of people have been commenting on the biased nature of this article, but I see those are "legions of SPAs and sock puppets". Somebody who agrees with your point of view, however, is "lots of people" that have a legitimate concern. YellowSandals (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That is not the case. Editors here have recognized the level and type of coverage the GamerGate movement's concerns for ethics has gotten and realize that no one in the media takes them seriously (except for the many conservative-leaning sites out there that have jumped on the anti-feminism bandwagon).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, two months ago a couple sites modified ethics policies to make clear that Patreon contributions should be disclosed, etc. That wasn't particularly controversial. But now what? If this is really about ethics, there has to be something more than that, otherwise the movement would have declared victory and moved on months ago. So what are the *other* "ethics" concerns? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Except now, some of the writers have made their Patreons private. And, its not just about the indie games or whatever. From what I've gathered from the pro-gg IRC, the "warpath" has IGN as a later target, with the AAA publishers as well. However, their reasoning is that they want to start small, and climb up the ladder of corruption, so to speak. --DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Erm, to clarify, the IRC serves as somewhat of an "abstraction layer" of sorts to 8chan's /gg/ board, where, *le gasp*, people can post anything, but ultimately other people can weigh in on the threads. The IRC channel(s) look at the threads, decide stuff, and then (attempt) to get it up on twitter or somesuch, or organize "Operations" and somesuch. --DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

One last thing. There is a lot of (very overlooked) evidence of third party trolls false flagging harassment and such. That is an angle that, afaik, has not been covered in the page. Is it really that absurd that there can't be third parties who are getting themselves involved in this? Does it have to be an "us vs them" thing? People are people, all different, you can't just boil them down to the lowest denominator. (sorry for the tangent) --DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what relevance a Patreon being private is, and "starting small" presumes that they've found any "corruption" to begin with, which is a fact not in evidence. What they might want to do in the future aside, the movement is being judged in the court of public opinion by what it's doing *right now*. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, okay. You got me. So why not write about the controversy in past tense now that it's over and everybody agrees that Gamergate was more amoral than Hitler? And yes, as DungeonSiege points out, if you guys really think nobody worth caring about at is paying any attention to Gamergate outside of harassed feminists, you're likely going to get blind-sided as this conflict keeps going. You guys asked, "Why aren't they attacking the journals if they aren't misogynist?"

Well, Gawker is bleeding money now, so you got your wish. Now you're saying, "Oh, why don't they go fight the big boys, then, instead of this little periodicals if they're not misogynist?"

There's no saying they won't and some are saying they will. Can we be frank? These personal smear articles that were inserted earlier - are you trying to add these to hang on to this thing as a clear-cut moral battle with obvious good guys and bad guy? A bunch of political entities have gotten involved in this thing and it even hit the Colbert Report. Yet we've still got yutzes here trying to frame Gamergate as some petty, inconsequential nothingness that's just about ready to collapse in on itself once we all realize the issue has nothing to do with ethics, and everything to do with ethics - or excuse me, I mean misogyny. By focusing so much on this moral crap, you really squander an opportunity to get an objective, ongoing, comprehensive look at this whole thing as it develops. YellowSandals (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

"Gawker is bleeding money" [citation needed] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

They did post an article where they said they were losing millions due to some of these advertisers pulling support for their site. Gawker has been doing everything they can to get it under control. Are you really so far down the rabbit hole that you can't believe Gamergate has had any real impact at all on anything? YellowSandals (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No. They said, two weeks ago, that they were losing "thousands" of dollars... and that was in an article that defiantly said they would not doing anything different, because they would refuse to bow to pressure based on advertising dollars. No one else has since pulled any ads, to anyone's knowledge. Trying to get advertisers to pull ads from websites that say things you don't like is an interesting example of a boycott, but it has nothing to do with "ethics in video game journalism." For example, nothing Gamasutra published was unethical.

You are bouncing around the edges of this, complaining about what everyone else is saying about you... while you still haven't been able to articulate what the movement really wants. If you can't define what you're after, it's hard to argue that it's unfair for others to define you. So again, as the thread starter said — what are the ethical issues in video game journalism that GamerGate wants to see changed? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

About me? I am not Gamergate. I'm not the patriarchy. I'm not the devil. I am a random person on the internet, and I've been keeping up with this debate, and as far as I can tell, there are sides to this thing and Gamergate is having an impact. You want to write this Wiki article to imply Gamergate basically isn't happening, but it is doing things and there are rational people in it. A common complaint from people who are neutral on this thing and don't care that much about it, however, is that it's hard to even talk about Gamergate without choosing a side because there's too many radical elements. I question the incredible bias and moral attacks in this article, and surely enough you associate me with a group that you've described as "factually evil". So how am I supposed to work with you or anyone in this mindset? It's like one of the ways you identify a misogynist is if you accuse them of misogyny and they deny it, they're a misogynist. Seriously, it's like old inquisition stuff, and when there's a collection of editors on a witch hunt, you'll find plenty of witches as long as you're flexible with the definition of "witch". YellowSandals (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

So instead of answering the simple question of what the movement's goals are, you deflect, turn it around on me and fabricate a "quote" that I've never said. Quite. That aptly demonstrates why the movement isn't taken seriously. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Your personal perception as to whether or not Gamergate is a serious thing shouldn't be playing so much into how you write this article. I'm not here to debate with you about whether not Gamergate is morally wrong or if they're winning or losing their fight. I'm here to debate with you about how you write this article, and my stance is that you're too biased. You need to lay off the attacks and just focus on stuff that can be objectively described. Neither of us knows what's going through the heads of people involved in this thing, save ourselves - and even then that depends on how firm a logical grasp we have on our feelings. YellowSandals (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

We can objectively describe that gamergate has achieved its notability for the death threats issued under its name and that is really all that it has been noted for. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Correction: We can objectively describe that gamergate has achieved its notability for the death threats that the media has associated with it. Willhesucceed (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Willhesucceed: you are joking here right? you are not actually submitting that gamergate is only connected to harassment by some type of gigantic media conspiracy?? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The proof is in the pudding. All of these acts of harassment< death threats, and the like have happened because people have spoken out against GamerGate or because they are the cause of GamerGate. Wikipedia is a foundation that has a governing body and other things that GamerGate inherently does not have because it's an anonymous social movement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

If the media has associated them with GamerGate, then we cannot say that they aren't related to GamerGate on Wikipedia. Your No true Scotsman deflection is not how Wikipedia works.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

To answer the question of goals, I believe this pastebin would work. http://pastebin.com/tTDeG7Zg It's one of many, and while the goals do vary some from supporter to supporter, it covers the main points pretty well. The main points are: 1.) Being treated with respect by gaming journalistic sites, 2.) Disclosure of previous involvement or relationship with review subjects, 3.) No collusion between journalistic entities. (Mailing lists, etc) 4.) Censorship is not acceptable. 5.) news articles concerning persons should have more than a single source, and all sources must be verifiable, 6.) Personal opinion, or political ideologies should not sway game coverage 7.) No blacklisting of developers 8.) Refusal to be defined by race, creed, religion, or gender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitsunedawn (talk • contribs) 02:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

We are aware of the goals. We can't use anything you've written in that 2 month old pastebin anyway because content on Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:19, 4 November 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.

Unable to edit

I am unable to edit ANYTHING on this page, and I don't know why. I've made more than a few edits on other articles and this isn't a new account, so if somebody could enlighten me as to why semi-protection prevents me from fixing a GRAMMAR ERROR, I'd appreciate it.

Oh, and fix it too, that would also be good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeletos (talk • contribs) 02:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You should be able to edit it just fine; you may have been prevented by an edit conflict. Try to edit it again. CIreland (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Never had that happen before, guess that says something about the articles I edit, thanks for the tip. Skeletos (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Discuss the Debate of legitimacy of ethics section

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.

---

The entire section is just "Someone said this. Someone said this." It's garbage utter garbage. HalfHat 11:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

We could just write "According to mainstream media sources, GamerGate's ostensible claims of "journalism ethics" are a meaningless, disingenuous shield for its campaign of harassment against women in gaming and its obsession with silencing social criticism of video games." That would be more concise and equally true. Once again, it's not our fault that GamerGate refuses or is unable to develop a coherent and meaningful platform that spells out exactly what issues it has with "journalism ethics" that don't boil down to "fire all SJWs" and "only fans of a video game should review that video game." If we're going to say in the lead sentence that "Gamergate supporters say it's about journalism ethics" then we surely have to explain, as best we can, how reliable sources are attempting to analyze and interpret that claim. The fact that they're not finding much of substance there is surely relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

According to mainstream media sources, GamerGate's ostensible claims of "journalism ethics" are a meaningless, disingenuous shield for its campaign of harassment against women in gaming and its obsession with silencing social criticism of video games.

Or people could try to write something actually encyclopaedic. Willhesucceed (talk) 11:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't blame GG for this shitty shitty article. HalfHat 12:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Since media itself is part of the controversy shouldn't the article actually reflect this? I am referring to a point/counterpoint way of writing the article. For instance if media claims that GG is about misogyny and is trying to cover this when talking about ethics, then this should be mentioned as "media" making a claim. Likewise GG's claim should be reflected. Sort of like "Pro-GG writers claim that their hashtag is about ethics in media and ethics in general. Gamer media and media claim this is a lie and suggest that this is GG trying to trick people. Pro-GG supporters counterpoints that media's claim that GG is just trying to cover up misogyny, is media just trying to shift the focus and demonize GG as a whole. Ect ect... that sort of thing. And it would work if only Wikipedia accepted youtube videos and evidence as actual reliable sources. Problem as I've pointed out however is that this article is about the GG controversy... and GG is saying the controversy revolves around media. Since media outlets logically wouldn't come out and attack itself, and since media outlets are pretty much the major thing wikipedia use as a "reliable source", this whole GG article is a sham. As long as the actual subject of the article is used as the "reliable source", this whole thing is nothing but a propaganda piece. I mean, say you are a famous person and there is a wikipedia article about you... then according to WB you are not allowed to actually edit the article yourself since. So what is the difference here? If media is the subject and only media is used as a reliable source, then it is the same thing as if media itself edited this article.--Thronedrei (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The article isn't about media, it's about a group of people who are making some claims about some media. As has been explained time and again here, the fact that GG criticizes some games media isn't relevant to the use of sources such as The New York Times, PBS NewsHour, The Washington Post, NPR, the Columbia Journalism Review, etc. etc. etc. These are impeccable reliable sources that have nothing to do with the publications GG has criticized. The only way you can possibly claim that they are "biased" is to assert that literally every mainstream media outlet is part of some massive global cabal conspiracy to suppress the truth about GamerGate. And that conspiracy theory is so patently absurd as to be unworthy of discussion.

We can't cite Pro-GG supporters' claims about journalism ethics when they apparently haven't made any meaningful claims about journalism ethics. (And no, someone's YouTube video attacking Zoe Quinn for the squillionth time is not a meaningful claim about journalism ethics.) Just saying the phrase "journalism ethics" is meaningless unless it's attached to some specific arguments and claims about what is done now and what should be done differently. Please, by all means, if you can find a better discussion of GG's journalism ethics claims than the one I took the time to seek out and add yesterday, let's get it in there. That's why I created the section in the place where it is, to move up and make prominent a discussion of what GamerGate is saying it's about. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If the article was about some people making claims about media, then shouldn't their claims as well as supposed evidence be presented in the article? And yet non of this is present in the article. The article just reports the claims media is making about a group that has accused them of poor ethics. In other words, this is just media being allowed to have a propaganda piece on Wikipedia. As I have explained earlier, if media have the same agenda (say post modernism) then tit is likely that they will support each other. "You scratch my back I scratch yours" That sort of thing. And yet you call these old media outlets "reliable"?? have you watched and read any of their articles? Where in any of them are they actually presenting factual evidence? How often when inviting somebody that has made claims that they have been harassed have they allowed somebody to make a counterpoint? When inviting the "anti-gg" people, why are they only throwing them "soft balls"? It is a media narrative, they are NOT reliable sources. It isn't a conspiracy against Gamergate supporters, this is just how media operates! As for citing Pro-GG supporters, youtube is not considered a valid source even if actual evidence is presented in a video. So it isn't possible to actually cite a pro-gg unless an article is written about them. However mainstream media are mainly left wing, they all pretty much report the same thing. Only journalists that aren't part of the main mainstream would go against the policy that mainstream dictates... but these news outlets are considered fringe by default that they aren't part of the mainstream left wing media.--Thronedrei (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that gamergate gets an F- on their PR skillz is not our issue. We cover what the reliable sources cover, and a group of anonymous wanks complaining "NOT FAIR - YOU ARE BIASED" does not change that, nor our policies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, if a source is biased then it isn't reliable anymore. Again, according to WB you are not allowed to write articles about yourself... since this article is very much about Media, then anything media reports can not be considered reliable since it would be teh same thing as allowing media to write this article themselves. Now as for your snide remark about PR skills, that simply isn't the case here. Media is reporting favorably on itself. How are people supposed to have anything bad about media reported on media when media itself dictates what can be reported on media? See how that works?--Thronedrei (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Random claims that someone is "biased" without any actual proof or evidence does not make them "bias" . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Random claims that somebody is a reliable source does not make them a reliable source either. Of course, by definition you are biased if you are actually part of the subject. I.E this clearly isn't just a "random claim". --Thronedrei (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

We are not talking about "random sources". We are talking about the major presses and highly qualified media analysis ranging from The Guardian, NYT, Telegraph, PBS, Columbia Journalism Review, and On the Media and on and on. So when you decide to come back to the real world and have actual real issues, you might be taken seriously. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere. If you have specific concerns about a source on this page then I suggest you try getting an opinion on WP:RSN — Strongjam (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Specific? No, but a general concern about using media articles as reliable source when this article is supposedly about Gamergates claims that media is corrupt. Anyway how does that logic work? Shouldn't the person making a claim that a source is reliable be the one proving that it is? --Thronedrei (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That line of argumentation petered out a month or so ago, I'm afraid. A case, albeit a shaky one, could have been made if the "critical-of-Gamergaters" sources were solely gaming media...Kotaku and the like. But the criticism has moved far beyond that and into the realm of mainstream media...Time, Wa Post, NY Times, and so on. These are solidly reliable sources, and form the basis for many. many articles in this project. If Gamergaters believe their point-of-view is being treated unfairly by mainstream, non-gaming, media, that isn't a concern of this project. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but no. I pointed out in other posts that old media can't be considered reliable just by default. Media should at the very least allow both sides to speak as well as actually ask questions to their guests and not simply allow them a propaganda platform. For instance take a look at how https://www.youtube.com/user/MidweekPolitics have handled the whole Gamergate debacle. Notice that he is actually asking both sides questions and not just allowing them to use his show to further their own ends. This isn't something that Time, Wa Post, NY Times ect have done. I.E by simply watching them in action we can draw the conclusion that so far they have NOT been a reliable source of information.--Thronedrei (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You have claimed that " that old media can't be considered reliable just by default." however in order for that position to have any basis in this discussion you will first need to change policy. And good luck with that because trusting reliably published sources is kind of the entire basis of our content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The actual object of the article cant be seen as unbiased and as such it must be considered unreliable as a sole source, isn't this normal standard wikipedia fair? As for changing Wikipedia policy this isn't necessary as WB policy actually support what I am saying.--Thronedrei (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not seek in any way shape or form to be "Fair" by presenting a false balance. We seek to be "fair" by presenting the mainstream reliably sourced version and interpretation. Creating a "false balance" is not what we do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

"Fair" and "balance" are two separate measures of neutrality. "Balance" will never happen with the way the predominate sources fall, but we can work on being "fair", which means in this case, not prejudging the situation based on the claims made by one side of the debate. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What nonsense. We go by what the reliable sources have presented us. We dont say, oh, but those reliable sources dont know what they are doing so we have to be "fair" because they have not been "fair". That is ridiculous non starter. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but yes. "I pointed out in other posts that old media can't be considered reliable just by default..." is a line of argument that carries no water here whatsoever. Tarc (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I know, wikipedia isn't consistent, it will bend its own rules as it sees fit.--Thronedrei (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not bend its own rules. You are asking Wikipedia to break its own rules and toss out reliable sources because they don't treat the subject the way the subject wants to be treated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

To be completely fair, GG actually does have certain specific ethics issues they want addressed (eg disclosing any possible conflict, making sure games are reviewed as games and not just the message they carry, etc.). But 1) these solidified "late" in the situation (after the harassment started) going to the "but ethics" line the media likes to use as that has outweighted any discussion of those claims, 2) no one has reported on these in an RS to allow any type of inclusion and 3) where there has been commentary on them in non-RSed (eg like twitter) by antiGG people, some of them seem infeasible or the like, making the issues unworkable. So we should not be thinking "they don't have any specific claims", but more that "they have claims but the details remain unverifiable per WP:V to include." The moment a strong RS mentions them, however, we should absolutely include them, we just have no idea if this will or not. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The V does not stand for vague. We are not abandoning Wikipedia policy because in your heart you know something to be true. Artw (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I never said to include them now. I said if a good RS does document the specific claims, we then should include them per WP:V. But we don't have that, so we can't do that yet. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

And here's where GamerGate goes off the rails, Masem. "Making sure games are reviewed as games and not just the message they carry" is not a journalism ethics issue. It's just not. It literally, definitionally has absolutely nothing to do with journalism ethics, period. It is a fundamental misappropriation of the term. Reviews of creative works are inherently subjective and each reviewer's choice of what to write about when they review a game is a matter of personal opinion and taste, not ethics. A person has the right to not read a review they disagree with and to entirely dismiss that reviewer's opinion. They do not have the right to tell the reviewer how they must write the review. There is not a single journalism code of ethics on the planet that requires reviewers of creative works to review them in any particular way. The end. If that is GamerGate's "journalism ethics" issue, then you have aptly demonstrated why nobody takes their "journalism ethics" claims seriously. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

As the Los Angeles Times' Code of Ethics states explicitly: "For critics, whose job is to express opinions on the merits of creative works..." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

We cannot prejudge others as WP editors. If the GG claims are printed in a good RS, with or without comment, we will include them, regardless of how much any editor might disagree with the specifics of the claims. This is the clinical neutrality that is required. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, we can certainly say that it's what GamerGate wants. But we're not going to say it's an issue of journalism ethics, because it's factually not, and any opinions to the contrary are necessarily fringe theories. It's a cargo cult use of the phrase, assuming that merely repeating the incantation "journalism ethics" makes their argument about actual journalism ethics. Maybe now you're understanding why their claims aren't being printed in reliable sources — because they don't have a clue what the words they're throwing around even mean. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You make a claim here that it isn't factually true that Gamergate is about journalism ethics. You provide no proof of this. Again I would advice you to stop posting these things without actually providing any evidence that what you are saying is true.--Thronedrei (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

the sources have been provided a dozen times that experts have reviewed the "but ethics" and found it completely wanting and no sources have ever been provided that say "yep, mostly gamergate is about ethics" . The onus is on you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The "but ethics!" mantra in the press is an opinion, it is not a proven fact. There are GG people going "this is about ethics", that's a fact that the "but ethics!" commentary all acknowledge, even implicitly, but the press is speaking in opinion (a very loud opinion that we can't ignore) that the actions around GG (the harassment) speak louder than words, so there is definitely a clear impression that regardless of how many GG'ers says that they are only for the ethics, the movement appears to be about enabling harassment. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

we go by the reliable sources who have analysed the subject and they are ALL agreed. as a whole gamergaters are not about ethics. even the things some claim to be concerned about are not ethics. and when there have been actual ethics issues gamergaters have turned a blind eye. "but opinion!" is as ridiculous a position as "but ethics" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

"Analysed" is an interesting word. I prefer "cherrypicked" or perhaps, "copied and pasted" If I wanted a parrot I would go to a pet store, buy a parrot, and duct tape it to my tv with NBC running 24/7. The fact that the "RS" so valiantly defended, have refused to acknowledge third party trolls, or hell, even bring up the wholly possible chance that some idiots decided to troll, says something to the "experts" who "analysed" GG. Is it so absurd, to consider that, perhaps there might be people, who would want to piss off both sides, for "teh lulz"? I present to you this: Bot designed for the sole purpose of harassing pro-gg users on twitter. Its been used, but the high and noble "RS" won't cherrypick that. It doesn't fit the narrative. If you look at "bots.rb" you'll see that it spams, and reports anyone who uses gamergate hashtags. Of course this is "original research" and therefore will be glossed over. Another thing I would like to bring up, concerning the validity of this article, is Nick Denton's tasteless "joke." I found it quite interesting, that several "RS" suddenly whiteknighted him and said "BUT IDS A JOKE!!!1!" Now, to contrast, the recent, similarly baseless accusations of Vivian James' color scheme. Its apparently a rape joke according to all the "RS". Now if its a joke, why wasn't that glossed over too? Not only that, there's no actual proof of either Nick Denton "joking" other than a half-assed save from himself on gawker, or that Vivian James' colorscheme is related to that dead meme, which, btw, RS brought back to life. To summarize, I don't want a parrot, I want an encyclopedia. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 18:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

When you get your journalism degree and get published, then we will weigh your "analysis" against the experts. Until such time, we go with the professionals. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stay focused on what's in the article. There's nothing about colour schemes or Nick Denton in the article. This is not a forum to talk about anything Gamergate related. — Strongjam (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright but what about the fact that the "RS" keep glossing over third party trolls (in a similar manner to you glossing over the github repo)? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 18:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What about the fact that reliable sources dont take an interest in the things you think they should? It means that we dont cover them (and you should go get a journalism degree if you want to cover those aspects). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because I am the only person who thinks this. Also stop deflecting the question with "muh jurnalizm degriee". Degrees can be bought in this day and age. If they think its important enough to copy off of Gawker's clickbait "journalism" surely they have the time to do some bing searches or something. There's really two explanations to this shit. 1. There are no third party trolls, and all the people who support the gg revolt are fat white virgin mid-20s cisgendered heterosexual neckbeards, which, afaik, I'm not, being one of journalism's precious minorities. Or, 2. there are, in fact, third parties, and it would break the narrative presented by Gawker, and force these so called "journalists" to, perhaps find out work. Are all pro-gg people misogynerds, or perhaps maybe the "journalists" were wrong? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 18:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want me to stop telling you that unless you get a journalism degree and get your analysis published we dont care about your personal analysis, you will stop attempting to get article content changed based on your personal analysis and you will start providing reliably published sources for us to use. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The github repo is not usable as its WP:SPS, as well there's no way to work it in that wouldn't violate WP:NOR. As far as dealing with 'RS' "glossing over" anything, WP is not the place to deal with that. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS (as an aside, if you feel that github repo is just for harassment, then please report it to them, not us.) — Strongjam (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

As if I've not reported it at least a few times already. Remember back when GitHub took down the text repository (because text can clearly be abused/modified in a way to create a general purpose malicious bot)? They don't take down this repo, suspiciously, despite the huge potential for abuse. (since modifiable ruby scripts cannot be abused in any way, shape, or form) --DSA510 Pls No Hate 18:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, even if the claims made by GG were published by a good RS, the whole "but ethics!" angle still remains and won't change that. My point is that we know these claims exist but simply lack any V/RS required sources to include; we should not act like there are no claims at all as WP editors. Currently that requires no change to the article, but we have to keep the open mind to look for these. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The "but ethics!" angle does exist, but it is not treated seriously by any reliable source. Wikipedia should reflect this lack of belief and treat the lack of belief as the majority viewpoint.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

To untangle from the above, the reason why this project requires reliable sources is that said sources have a history of reliability, accuracy, and fact-checking. That's why random person finding a github twitter bot doesn't really amount to much, as said person cannot verify that it actually is what it is. For all we know it could be a joke, a ruse, or a false flag op by a "but ethics" person. a reliable source is generally trusted enough so that if they choose to write a story about a GG troll bot, they have done their due diligence beforehand to see if it is a legit thing. Tarc (talk) 18:47, 7 November 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.

Images and captions

If these continue to be a source of controversy I suggest we just junk the lot if them - I do not see them as adding much to the article. Artw (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

We should use (free) images to illustrate an article, irregardless, this is a MOS thing. I think, however, there's some weight issues. Quinn and Sarkeesian, for sure, should get images being core people, but the others are people that only have one "aspect" in the entire debate that we might be giving excess weight to with the images. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

4chan Ban

Regarding this. I don't have a problem with the content really, it's just nowhere in the article do we mention 4chan banning the discussion and the claim isn't cited. If we could work it into the article with a citation somewhere then I wouldn't be against including a mention in the lede. Also, 8chan doesn't have an article page so the wiki-link just redirects to a disambiguation page that will bring the reader back to this article. — Strongjam (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I know 4chan banned GG discussion but there's no discussion of that from RSes, yet. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not disputing the truth, just the verifiability. Artw put it back in citing BLP and previous discussion so I'll leave it if people feel that's really an issue. — Strongjam (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That edit comment was in relation to reverting another change, yours got swept up by accident - hazard if editing a fast moving article. Artw (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Found a reference in an article we are using from The Guardian While many Gamergate voices have strenuously denied being involved in Wu’s harassment – even though much of it is being generated on the 8chan site (as Gamergate discussions have been banned from 4chan by the site’s owner) – the developer herself as no doubts. Also in the NY Magazine 8chan article (I think this one has been discussed but isn't used) As a result, a number of high-profile female journalists, developers, and critics have received death threats and harassment from gamergaters. Even 4chan banned the movement’s supporters. But 8chan welcomed gamergaters with open arms, hosting a dedicated board for them. As a result, 8chan traffic has surged. — Strongjam (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Before you go on to smear 8chan in a similar manner to how TRPoD tried to smear Hotwheels (with the 8chan celebration thing), anyone can make a board on 8chan. I could make a /wikipedia/ board there, for example. Does the content there reflect the content/nature of Wikipedians here? Hotwheels is somewhat of a third party, and not. He allowed the board as it wasn't causing him problems, and somewhat supports GamerGate, however the "Open Arms" thing is clearly a smear. Hotwheels learned of the conflict after the creation of /burgers/ (reference to the previous, abandoned controversy "5 Guys Burgers and Fries"). Now, since anyone can create a board, there was, an /antigg/ too. It might not be around at this time. Why? It must be the soggyknees! Actually, on 8chan, if a board doesn't get significant traffic for 2 weeks, its automatically deleted. Of course any deleted board can be recreated. Coming back to the original point, Hotwheels did not know about the controversy before people went to 8chan en masse, so "Welcomed with open arms" is either uninformed, or a smear. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 22:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need to talk too much about 8chan, beyond that after 4chan blocked much GG discussion, 8chan was the refuge for most of them. --MASEM (t) 22:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The common culture on 4chan/Reddit/8chan and similar boards leans very heavily on ironic "shocking" sexism, racism etc.which frequently turns out to be not all that ironic - something that has very much informed the tone of GamerGate and probably should be discussed. Artw (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

/r/srs? Or the other 5 billion whiteknighting boards on leddit? What about the /lgbt/ board on halfchan, which does have quite a few quality threads? And, the /cuteboys/ /fem/ and /mental/ on 8chan all have quite a few quality threads. Perhaps its the frank tone used on halfchan or 8chan that bothers people. And, its a commonly known fact that on /pol/, its either stupid edgelords or stormfront people who ruin all the threads. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 22:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What exactly were you trying to say there? All we're discussing here is whether 4chan's discovery of moral fiber by banning Gamergaters is noteworthy or not, it's nothing more conspiratorial than that. Tarc (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

While it does nothing/very little about the stormfront posters, gore threads, rape threads, child porn threads. Moral fiber indeed. CP threads actually got to 100+ replies since the mods were busy deleting GG threads. Try again. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 01:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith, I was just trying to help you find some sources for your edit, not smear anyone. — Strongjam (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This has to do with article content and how the sources are presenting materials.. ... how? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The "Open Arms" bit seems much more like an opinion rather than fact. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 01:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos

This ain't a water cooler folks.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The newest criticism of GamerGate comes from...Milo Yiannopoulos. Obviously it's an SPS and we'll have to wait for reliable sources to comment, but it appears that he has not only stopped talking about GamerGate but is actively distancing himself from it. Woodroar (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC) Fickle opportunist is opportunistic, fickle. I suppose that to whatever extent we are indicating he is a supporter of GamerGate we might want to indicate he doesn't seem to be now, though of course pretty much anything to do with him is inherently unreliable. Artw (talk) It will be interesting to see if others pick up on his moving away (We can document Milo as a prior GG supporter but not this yet). --MASEM (t) 18:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC) -- There's a bit where Milo talks about GG in this [1] --DSA510 Pls No Hate 05:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Its terrible that they have started backstabbing, but those death threats earlier - no probs there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC) Yes because every proGG person clearly cheered on the death threats and doxxing. BTW, if we're going on twitter stuff, then what about dox threat to the #burgersandfries channel on rizon, was it a joke like the "bring back bullying" thing? I happen to love jokes about bullying, as I was merely bullied since preschool! What wit and whimsy!.--DSA510 Pls No Hate 05:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Since no media reports on it there is no actual source but "King Of Poll" possibly talked about this on his twitter.--Thronedrei (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC) King of /pol/ (Politically Incorrect board on 8chan, where its impossible to tell apart the obvious stormfront posters and the people just messing around, it still amazes me that people take /pol/ seriously), to be exact, who announced on his twitter that he would be leaving gamergate for a while. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 05:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC) He is a reporter and he is reporting on its current state. He should not be listed as a pro-GG anymore than other news outlets are anti-GG. There are other sources that say GG coverage is about to come to a halt with extreme prejudice. The U.S. election is over and opportunists from many sides no longer need the cause to salvage their reputations or promote their views. --DHeyward (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC) his twitter feed shows that he is an involved party in this incident - he is not a "journalist" . but the kingofpol feed is fucking hilarious.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC) No, he IS a journalist -- however a case could be made that he is also a supporter of free speech and support the idea that media should be held accountable for its actions.--Thronedrei (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC) While for other subjects he may be considered a "journalist"*, he has deliberately inserted himself into this story and is not a "journalist covering a story" as far as gamergate goes. You know , those basic journalism ethics of not covering things you have a personal relationship/stake in. *although he has always been more of an opinionista than an actual journalist.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC) No, you don't stop being a journalist just because what you are doing isn't something you do as a journalist. A cop is still a cop even if she or he is on vacation. But fair enough, then that means that every single article writing on every single game media site can not be considered an actual news article since the journalists there are themselves a part of the actual debate. Hey... you know, isn't this exactly what I've been saying all along?--Thronedrei (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC) When he thrusts himself into the debae as the anti-feminist talking head that he is (supported by Zaid Jilani in Salon) it takes away from his reputability. Not to mention the fact that the publication he writes for has a horrible track record with eerything else. He's mentioned enough as is.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC) There's a ton of complicated history in the last few days. He's just making commentary about it. I wouldn't say it amounts to anything of significance just yet. If he wrote an entire article about it, maybe. —Torchiest talkedits 02:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC) There's no source for this, but for context... someone "revealed" Facebook posts that purported to show Nick Denton formulating a massive anti-GG conspiracy. The Facebook posts were obviously fabricated and not taken seriously by anyone outside GG, but many GGers bought it hook-line-and-sinker. Now that it's been revealed that it was nonsense... there's a wee bit of internal drama going down. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC) There was a lot of doubt as to the validity of the posts from both sides. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 05:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Interesting though. Internet Aristocrat seems to be with him, he was the one that started it all. HalfHat 10:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC) The problem is twofold. If left alone people possibly could things that can be reported as harassment. Like saying Good morning. But policing people and shutting them down when they express an opinion just because they use foul language is not the way to go either. This seems to be the gist of it if Twitter is to be believed.--Thronedrei (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC) This is victim blaming which does not belong on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is almost entirely opinion

Seriously a lot needs cut. The article is unreadable. HalfHat 10:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That's because GG supporters complain from here to next week when we try to clearly express the consensus of reliable sources in Wikipedia's voice. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No it's because every time any RS writes anything on this someone insists it should get a section, and no one is willing to have anything cut. We can't and shouldn't make this a collection anyone ever said on GG. HalfHat 11:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It is to note the strong support for "RS" smear pieces on any public supporter, since they fit the narrative. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 19:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it's because everyone has given up trying to summarize prose in a neutral POV after so many people — 'anti' or 'supporter' — ping pong between fifty billion permutations of some irrelevant's 'here's-me-saying-nothing' opinion.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

What the hell?

Why is Boing Boing used as a source? And, its used in a source for a bullshit argument (colourscheme = rape somehow), which serves no purpose other than POV pushing. Steven Melendez in Fast Company later raised the issue that the character's green and purple color scheme had been chosen to reference an old meme on 4chan where a gif animation of the Dragon Ball character Piccolo sodomizing Vegeta was posted excessively to where the image itself was banned but Piccolo's green and purple color scheme was posted instead, which still elicited the response and had become known as the "daily dose". TFYC's Matthew Rappard, as well as many GamerGate supporters, have denied the connection to the old meme, insisting that green and purple were simply colors representative of 4chan, despite Melendez and Rob Beschizza of Boing Boing both observing implicit acknowledgement of the meme in the 4chan forum discussions that led to the creation of Vivian James.[105][106] Is this the level of trite Wikipedia is being reduced to slowly? Thank god none of you edit any KDE articles. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 19:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

There is already a thread on this issue above. Find it instead of starting a new thread.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Or rather Beschizza is a staff editor at Boing Boing rather than some random writer being republished there. Boing Boing is a reliable source. Stop complaining about things that are out of your control.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to be so cocky about it, prove me wrong. Prove that Boing Boing is on the RS list. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 22:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no "RS list". However, I've already shown in a thread above that Boing Boing is used on hundreds of pages on the English Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Invoking stormfront is in the ballpark of reductio ad Hitlerum, so let's get back on-track here. Tarc (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If there's no RS list, who determines what is RS? With enough convincing, stormfront can be made an RS. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 00:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Reliable sources are determined on a case-by-case basis or if necessary discussion at WP:RSN as to whether or not certain sources qualify as reliable sources. There is no single list of good and bad sources, but through discussion we can easily throw out anything from extreme right-wing shit like Stormfront. If you have nothing constructive to add here then stop coming.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Are you seriously suggesting the equivalent that 'DSA510' should just 'shut up and get off this page'? That's what I'm seeing, telling him to stop coming here if he doesn't have anything 'constructive' to add. Maybe you could not comment on others, Ryulong. Tutelary (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC) If he doesn't have anything constructive to contribute to the page, as it seems he has come back here from Uncyclopedia to just edit this page and stir up shit (why else did he begin by linking to archive.today versions of my old website) then he can leave. There are enough users here who possess the same point of view on this topic as he does and is not particularly marred by terrible behavior that involved personally attacking me from some garbage pulled out from the depths of KotakuInAction or Encyclopedia Dramatica.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Because you don't particularly like him doesn't mean you get to tell him to leave this page because you have some animosity towards him. That's unacceptable conduct. Tutelary (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC) I may not like him, but he has made several edits that make it seem he is not here for the good of the project.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Is there a problem with Uncyclopedia? And, if you had read the longass apology I wrote instead of instareverting it, I did apologize about that. Anyways, there is no real connection between "daily dose" and Vivian. Unless you travel back to time, go to each /v/irgin's head, and read their mind about Vivian, there is no real evidence of the colorscheme being intentionally somehow related. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 01:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC) You may disagree with the connection, but that does not stop reliable sources from mentioning it and coming to their own conclusion, which is what they are allowed to do and we are not.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "Inferring that journalist looking for pagehits are reliable sources." Reading his claims is like watching a monkey throw its feces at people walking by its cage; No other outlet has written anything about and the whole thing frankly isn't even relevant to the GG article. Perhaps it would be relevant to a separate article about the game or the character itself but it has such a little part in the GG controversy that it has already been covered under what had already been said.--Thronedrei (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC) My point is, it doesn't add anything of worth to the article. And, as a courtesy to you, if you think I'm overly pro-gg, I'll sell out this thread to you. [2] Before you accuse me of trying to save face, I don't actively browse any chan (or leddit for that matter). Someone linked this to me, do with it what you will. But coming back to my original point, it seems as good as, in perhaps some article about an election candidate, "Republican X McY's poster clearly shows (weak connection to some generally negative thing). [Number] ref Number: Some Site: Look at this HUGE Analysis of Republican X's campaign!" --DSA510 Pls No Hate 02:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Oh please. Like anyone could have found this unless they're actively browsing /gg/.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC) I'm in a gg related channel on an irc network. Sue me. Update: They seem to be fighting amongst themselves, its hilarious. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 02:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC) They called you a sell out too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC) I noticed. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 02:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Alright, to be completely open with you, I go on /cuteboys/. Only that board. Anyways, the bit in question that started this seems unnecessary. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 02:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Why not /furry/—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Wat. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 03:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Anil Dash

I now have four sources supporting the events of his harassment. Cernovich is unnamed. "Bribery" is unused. There is no BLP violation now. There should be no reason to remove this shit again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

If by sources you mean news outlets then no, those are NOT sources. A source is can actually provide actual information and, evidence and facts. If a "reliable source" just reports "person X says he was harassed" then all the source is actually providing us with is that person X claims that he was harassed. Likewise if the source states "person x was harassed" and present no evidence, then it can't be used as a source of facts since it is just presenting an opinion and could at best only be used as source of opinion. I.E in the article it could say "source A claims that person X was harassed but provides no evidence". Something like that would have been acceptable although hardly something that would be relative to this GG article itself.--Thronedrei (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I notice you said four sources, not four reliable sources. One of them is Biddle himself, and with a headline like "The D-List Right-Wingers Who've Turned Gamergate Into Their Loser Army"... Anyway, the last source is from Boing Boing which is apparently a blog according to their Wikipedia article. The Boing Boing article is even more disgustingly partisan. Until it is proved that Boing Boing is an WP:RS I will be removing the Boing Boing sources from the page. starship.paint ~ regal 05:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted your bold edit to remove all reference of Boing Boing from the page. Their presence has not been discounted in the past considering they're extensively used across the project. You can't throw them out just because they're being expressly anti-gamergate here. And Biddle's op/ed is just like any other op/ed being attacked on both sides.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry? You make no attempt to defend their reliability except say that other articles use Boing Boing? Also, from your link, some of the usage on Wikipedia is from talk pages and some is from External Link sections of articles. From Boing Boing's about page, Time Magazine named Boing Boing one of the "Best Websites of 2009" and "Best Blogs of 2010." Fast Company has called it "one of the most popular blogs on the planet". And of the three authors, Beschizza is the only one on the editorial staff. So even if you can prove that Boing Boing is reliable, Beschizza's opinion as a staff writer would then be the only reliable one, IMO. starship.paint ~ regal 05:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

They have an editorial team. They're extensively used on Wikipedia already. You're only just now deciding to contest this when I have added content you contest on the page. Boing Boing is being used to supplement other statements rather than being the sole source on matters itself. There's nothing in WP:RSN's archives going "Don't use Boing Boing". In fact, its presence is being used as an example of reputability. It's a former print magazine gone fully digital. It meets WP:RS. I'm reverting you, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I also see you removed the Laurie Penny bit, which no one has had any problem with until you questioned the reliability of Boing Boing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

In the context of this highly controversial article, BB is not a great RS - it's fine for less controversial articles, but not here. --MASEM (t) 06:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• You're only just now deciding to contest this - I've just seen it - I don't edit this article 24/7. I had erroneously removed the Penny piece, I thought it was from Boing Boing, that was my mistake. Anyway, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 2#Exetel states that blogs like Boing Boing are "dubious in all cases". Subsequent cases are mixed, but even so they refer to Boing Boing's staff such as Doctorow, Jardin and Frauenfelder, not every single person who has written for the website group blog.
• In contrast, Matt Binder is not a staff member from Boing Boing. His credentials, as stated from the article itself, "is a finder of dumb tweets." He has written only one article for Boing Boing, and it is seriously inflammatory. Is there any evidence that Binder's article was subjected to any editorial oversight? You've got a dubious source, with a dubious author, with a dubious article. Binder should definitely be removed from this article. starship.paint ~ regal 06:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You are pulling a 4 year old discussion at WP:RSN as a reason to deny Boing Boing as a reliable source? Nice try. And fine. Binder's removed. Biddle's remarks remain. The staff writer's remarks remain. Laurie Penny's piece is sourced to her own blog rather than the copy-paste at Boing Boing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Article neutrality

I am appalled by the absolute lack of neutrality demonstrated in this article. The introduction alone is clearly taking a side and simple edits would suffice to fix it:

Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #gamergate) is a controversy which started in August 2014. Supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement state that they are opposing corruption in video game journalism. Detractors state that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture.

The controversy began when indie game developer Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend alleged that Quinn had a romantic relationship with a journalist for the video game news site Kotaku. This led to harassment of Quinn, including accusations that the relationship had led to positive coverage of Quinn's game. This in turn led to the birth of the Gamergate movement whose stated aim was to denounce a climate of corruption in gaming journalism. The conflict escalated when a number of gaming industry employees supportive of Quinn were subjected to harassment, threats of violence, and doxxing, leading some to flee their homes.The targets of the harassment included Quinn, feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian, and indie game developer Brianna Wu. The harassment came from social media users, particularly those from 4chan and Reddit using the #gamergate hashtag. It was condemned by media sources as anti-feminist,[1] and heightened discussion of sexism and misogyny as well of journalistic integrity in the gaming community.

The social movement behind the Gamergate hashtag has stated that they are concerned with ethics in video game journalism, and identified themselves as participating in what they call a consumer revolt, with members requesting that ad providers pull support from sites critical of Gamergate. This decision and others have been widely criticized in the media as evidence that the ethics concerns are only a front for a culture war against people working to diversify the video game demographic. The Gamergate group's origins in the accusations and harassment of Quinn, its failure to identify significant ethical issues in games media, and its frequent criticism of game critics who discuss issues of gender, class, and politics in their reviews have also been cited as evidence for this position.

The events of Gamergate are attributed by its proponents to perceived conflicts of interest, dishonesty and a lack of professionalism in the gaming journalism industry. They cite examples such as the firing of Jeff Gerstmann over his review of the game "Kane and Lynch", the shutting down of "The Fine Young Capitalists'" web fundraiser and conflicts of interests at IndieCade and the Independent Games Festival. Such issues in gaming journalism in turn leads to reduced consumer awareness and greater difficulty to break through for independent game developers. Meanwhile, detractors attribute them to perceived changes or threats to the "gamer" identity as a result of the ongoing diversification and maturation of the gaming industry. As video games have become recognized as a popular art form, they have been subjected to social criticism and treated directly as a vehicle for such commentary. This move to recognize games as art is thought to have prompted opposition from traditional "hardcore" gamers who view games primarily as a form of entertainment.

There we go, simple as that. I haven't read the entire article but if the introduction sets the tone for it, then the entirety of it needs to be rewritten in such a way. Such a lack of neutrality threatens Wikipedia's integrity and should be dealt with swiftly. Akesgeroth (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There is literally a discussion on this right above this, not to mention this version spins it into solely a pro-Gamergate point of view that is about the movement and not the controversy and is therefore not "neutral" per WP:NPOV.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, I actually would support this text that is a pipe dream--although a few sentences would need to be cut or whatever, I'll keep hoping. Tutelary (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This is basically just the polar opposite of the lede from the GamerGater point of view. I don't see how it's any more neutral, not to mention there's no source to support the vast rewriting when the opposite is true for the present version.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The original wording automatically implies that the group opposing Gamergate is right and overwhelmingly presents their side of the issue, unchallenged. Meanwhile, the "Pro-Gamergate" side is crudely summarized in one sentence whose only purpose is to introduce yet more "anti-Gamergate" arguments. I reworded it to include both sides and remove any suggestion that either side is right, so please state how you feel this version would be "less neutral". Akesgeroth (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Because this version is just a GamerGate spin on everything. You remove the mention of misogyny and harassment from the first paragraph, which is how everyone other than GamerGate itself sees things from the outside in, and gives undue weight to the GamerGate POV which for the past several months of discussing this subject is not found in the preponderance of reliable sources. It is not Wikipedia's job to serve as a spin doctor for the movement as you and everyone else who has not been on Wikipedia for months or years at a time coming here from KotakuInAction to use your old Wikipedia accounts to try to sway the article in your favor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Who are these "everyone" you speak of Ryulong? Or are you saying that everyone that all of a sudden agrees with GG are suddenly a part of GG and therefor the "everyone" would not include them?--Thronedrei (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The sentence "Detractors state that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture." is still in the first paragraph. All I did was remove ", concerning misogyny and harassment in video game culture." because that part is not neutral but rather the side of the "anti-Gamergate" crowd, which is mentioned alongside the "pro-Gamergate" side, without supporting either side. Please read what is written before actually commenting on it. Akesgeroth (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

As per the reliable sources, the controversy is about misogyny and harassment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but no. I have seen no reliable sources reporting this.--Thronedrei (talk) 06:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It gets fixed sometimes, but it only lasts for a day or less usually. Somebody barges in saying, "No way, that's now how it happened! Nobody believes this!" and pretty soon the article is absurd again. The issue is that some editors feel there's a clinical, factual way to gauge when something is misogynistic, and Gamergate has fulfilled that, so we need to spend as much time as possible telling everyone how misogynistic it is. Consequently, we occasionally have people coming in to ask what Gamergate is even about, because the article has come to be written as 90% misogyny accusations and 10% half-hearted acceptance that stuff is happening.

I appreciate the re-write! I skimmed over it and see what you're going for, and I think it's a bit bulky - plus we need to make sure everything can be linked to a source. In any case, you'll need to hang around over an extended period if you'd like to have it and keep it, though. YellowSandals (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I unfortunately have neither the time or inclination to debate this much further and edit the entire article. Rather, my intervention was aimed at expressing my concerns over neutrality and demonstrating that it would be easy to rewrite it without taking sides on the issue.Akesgeroth (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

These "fixes" are attempts by those in the GamerGate movement and not actual attempts at arguing for neutrality because "neutrality" in their mind, as is evident by this rewrite proposal, is one that is effectively and entirely biased in their favor, as Erik Kain pointed out months ago.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Presenting both sides equally is not biased in anyone's favor. Akesgeroth (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is, actually. Wikipedia does not present "both sides equally" — it presents positions in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for trying! The article needs a lot of work in a lot of ways, but the controversy is highly ideological and Wikipedia has unfortunately been a battleground for the issue. YellowSandals (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The claims about Quinn have been proven false repeatedly. The claims re: IGF and IndieCade are entirely unsourced. TFYC has nothing in particular to do with journalism ethics. Gerstmann got fired seven years ago at the behest of a major publisher, which GamerGate has been conspicuously unwilling to criticize thus far. In short, your rewrite proposal is not acceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure somebody would start commenting on it if it wasn't for the fact that it happened SEVEN years ago. I wasn't even aware that this had happened until you brought it up.--Thronedrei (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Quit talking about other editors on this talk page or you risk being Sanctioned under Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate. Dreadstar ☥ 02:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is nothing to be gained by entertaining single-purpose account after single-purpose account in thread after thread when all they do is post "this article sucks!" screeds. It just raises tempers, which as noted earlier is exactly what external forces are doing here intentionally. Hat these discussions or ignore them outright, we'll all be better off. Tarc (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Hear hear! Let us shun outside perspectives! For we do not need them. They are all fools. This article is nearly perfect. All we need now is an escalator and Time Machine and we can prove once and forever that Gamergate is wrong! In case you missed it, I'm joking. I know you guys like to write off the "legions of SPAs and sock puppets" as a bunch of conspiratorially connected evil-doers who want an evil, impartial article, but the sheer volatility of your reactions to these people does seem to drive most of them away. I think anyone who sticks around this thing must be a glutton for punishment. YellowSandals (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC) It's a general lack of enthusiasm at people with ten edits on their account coming here to make the same claims as everyone that came before them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Ryulong, it does not matter whether someone has made 10 edits or 100 edits. They have just as much right as you do to come here and state their opinion. You are definitely biting Cla68 here. [[THEO!|User:Tjraptis20]] (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Good grief. How about I chime in here. I have more than 10 edits. I do not play video games and I do not belong to GamerGate or anti-GamerGate (and all editors here should not be leveling these kind of accusations at each other). I agree with Akesgeroth that the current lede is not sufficiently neutral and his/her proposed lede is better. Do we need an RfC or can we work through this? Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Akesgeroth's proposed lead is not supported by the sources used throughout the article and very little sources out there to even support several of the statements made. This effectively gives undue weight to the minority opinion in these matters. Neutrality isn't "both sides get equal treatment". WP:NPOV contains the following tenets: "Avoid stating opinions as facts", "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts", "Avoid stating facts as opinions", "Prefer nonjudgmental language", "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views". In all, this comes down to the fact that the media at large have decried GamerGate as an anti-feminist and misogynistic backlash at a maturing industry that they've been insular about for years, and the cries from GamerGate supporters that say calling the movement and controversy misogynistic and anti-feminist as is stated by the majority of reliable sources somehow contravenes these tenets of Wikipedia which no one bothers to read because in their mind "neutral" means "50/50" and not "present it as it's presented elsewhere" because they automatically assume the media is 100% against them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem here isn't that the wikipedia article reports that the majority of the media make the claim that GG is about misogyny; the problem is that the wikipedia article is written in a way that leads the reader to believe that the truth is being reported. As for "equal representation", that is a misconception. What people are asking for is that wikipedia directly reports on what has actually been said. I.E if it can be proven by linking to actual evidence -- that GG is about journalist corruption, then this should be mentioned in the article or at least that GG supporters make this claim. This however isn't what Wikipedia is doing, Wikipedia is just reporting what news outlets have written. Since this article is actually about GG's claims that there is media corruption, only using "established" news media as a "reliable source" (lol) is bogus. Why would established media write articles about how they themselves are corrupt? See how that works? As such, if Wikipedia is only going to be based on these types of "reliable" sources, then it would be better if the whole Wikipedia article was purged as a whole since it does not actually report actual information.--Thronedrei (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No. The problem here is that POV pushers advocating for the GamerGate movement are insistent in denying that multiple news sources, that are not the video game websites that the GamerGate movement is fighting against, all have come to the same conclusion and that conclusion must not, according to the POV pushing editors, be attributed as a fact. You cannot go conspiracy theory and claim that all media is against GamerGate and therefore only the sources that the GamerGate editors put forward, namely anything put out by the extreme right wing or conservative leaning news media that are going "GAMERGATE IS ABOUT FEMINISTS BULLYING POOR MALE GAMERS" as has been consistently the case, are allowed here is not how Wikipedia works. We are not mitigating the fact that misogyny and sexism and harassment and death threats have been intertwined with GamerGate more than anything about its claims of corruption in video game journalism just because the GamerGate movement wants to insist that these statements on misogyny are merely the opinions of the authors at multiple different news media, such as the BBC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, etc. rather than just the Gawker windmills being tilted at.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait, are you making the claim that if a news outlet reprots something, then this magically becomes facts? Is that what you are saying Ryulong? You see, what many in GG argue is that established media has a vested interest in this. For instance the gaming Journalistic sites could be said to be extreme far left in their views. And what "old media" outlets report on this if not the far left ones? This of course suggest that these media outlets have a vested interest in supporting their journalist "friends" on the Internet. Also, if you actually watch any of these reports you will notice a distinct lack of actual representation of both sides. These media outlets only invite people that claim they have been harassed or in some other way are already famous. In an post (that was deleted) I mentioned this briefly, but I wont go into details this time... but you can check yourself. These reports are all about the "victim" getting a free reign to tell their story, the interviewer never asking any tough questions and basically presenting the idea that what these people claim are facts, this despite no evidence of this actually being presented in the show itself. So, no -- based on their actions these media outlets can not be trusted to be objective.

Also, it is funny how you mention that "extreme right" media articles wont be allowed on here as source, then you seemingly champion extreme left media articles?--Thronedrei (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm making the claim that if fifty news outlets come to the same independent conclusion that it's probably a fact. The BBC, New York Times, Guardian, and CNN should have no vested interest in what a bunch of video game news websites have to say about anything. You are seriously going "IT'S A MEDIA CONSPIRACY AGAINST GAMERS" here, as well as denying the fact that the people being discussed in this article have even been affected by gross attacks because of GamerGate, leaving me with no real way of refuting anything you say. I'm not going to be responding to you any further.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

What you call independent I call collusion. Non of these articles ever present any real evidence of their claims and they all are written in pretty much the same way, even using the same jargon. Journalists are friends, they add each other on facebook and twitter. How can you call them independent when they are fraternizing on social media? The BBC, New York Times, Guardian, and CNN are all far left leaning media outlets with a great invested interest in supporting other left leaning media stay in power. So it isn't as much of a media conspiracy against gamers as it is just "business as usual" as far as media is concerned. Its all about the money and staying in control of the narrative. That is what I am saying. Again none of these media outlets have provided any evidence that these people that were harassed were so because of GamerGate. Wuu posted on Twitter. Check her interviews yourself where she admits harassing GG supporters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1U1cT72JBc&t=2m57s She thought it was funny. Yes, posting things that can be considered harassment is indeed funny? Or: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETVcInunAss&t=2m4s Making the claim that she was harassed due to Gamergate is silly, since if she was harassed, it was because she was harassing people right?--Thronedrei (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said previously, it's clear you're convinced that there's a mass media conspiracy against gamers so there's nothing more to say on this. Or your complaints about Wu's gamer bro account or whatever it was that people keep calling a sockpuppet when she admitted it was her from the beginning.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

And I will explain it to you again; I never said Media was conspiring against Gamers per say, I was saying that media supports it's own. It ties in with the whole 'media corruption' GamerGate is trying to uncover. By the by, isn't your claim that I'm claiming that "Media has a conspiracy going" actually supporting the notion that GG is about concerned about ethical issues in Gamer media?--Thronedrei (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

This is still a conspiracy theory where you are tilting at windmills.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow that isn't even a real answer.--Thronedrei (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You are claiming that the media is wholly against Gamergate in some backroom conspiracy dealings here. I cannot seriously acknowledge this as something to discuss because of the absurdity of the notion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

And as far as I'm aware nothing you've written has been deleted. It might be in one of the dozen archives this page has but it does not look like anything was deleted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I made a claim about Brianna Wu, while able to prove this linking to youtube interviews he has done, I did not actually link to it in my post. So it was deleted and I was given "Final warning" for violating Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Which also made me wonder, how can a first warning be a final warning?--Thronedrei (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes BLP seriously. Consider it a "First and Final" and consider yourself lucky that an admin didnt think that you were being purposefully disruptive because any warnings are optional. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

If anyone feels something is against Wikipedia policy, then they should ask some mod/admin that isn't writing in this article to take a look at it right? But yes, like I said I should have provided the links of course. How nice of you to point that out.--Thronedrei (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

David Pakman's Interviews

Perhaps, unless WP:RS will be called through some loophole or whatnot, that David Pakman's interviews be noted in the article. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 19:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

[3] [4] [5] [6] There are probably more which I missed. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 22:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Per the FAQ up-top anything on Youtube is considered a WP:SPS. — Strongjam (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

SPSs are not immediately disqualified as sources, but we need care that the person is an established expert and has shown their own editorial control in the past. I do believe that Pakman seems to meet that (given this is a nationally syndicated show, it seems), but I'm not 100% on that. --MASEM (t) 23:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Was not aware. I never heard of him before. Were these interviews aired? — Strongjam (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, on some Internet radio stream I'm not sure of exactly. BBC? It seems as though half of the interview is done live, while the last half is uploaded on YouTube.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

As they are interviews, even if they are deemed to be reliable sources, they're only of value as sources of opinion - something which seems well covered in the article to date. - Bilby (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Pakman is notable, in that unlike most other people's precious "RS", which smell of cherries and paste, Pakman is the only interviewer to give BOTH sides the time of day, instead of glossing over one side. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 16:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Interviews are still only interviews. Just because he bothered to talk to Milo and the capitalists spokesperson doesn't change anything on this article seeing as there's nothing new coming from them or Wu either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh wow really? Last tiem I checked Totakl Bisquit isn't mentioned in this article. He was interviewed by Pacman and explained what GG was all about. At the very least this should allow it to be mentioned in the article that: "A pro-GG advocate "Total Biscuit" (or his real name) said [insert Biscuits claim] on GG on Pacman's show."--Thronedrei (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that he hasn't discussed an issue or concern that does not appear in this article.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

We have Brianna Wu's opinions. Milo Yiannopoulos was only reacting to Wu calling him out on his bullshit (that she says she experienced). Matthew Rappard's opinion isn't necessarily important here and neither is Arthur Chu because we haven't talked him any detail prior.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

No, we also have Brianna Wu accusing Pacman on air of doing a hitpiece when he was just asking Wu normal questions. The interview as well as another one Wu did shows that Wu is changing his story about why he he believes GG were responsible for doxxing him. As a piece it is important since it should cast some doubt on Wu's claims if GG being responsible for the doxxing. Also, Pacman did another interview with Milo Yiannopoulos where Milo responds to Wu's claims and called Wu out on her "bullshit".--Thronedrei (talk) 09:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I watched those same two interviews and had a very different response - I thought the questions in both were over the top, but of the two Wu came out stringer. This, of course, is why we have to be so careful not to draw conclusions from interviews - too much room for personal interpretation.- Bilby (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw poll - Remove section of Wikileaks twitter campaign

Assange's participation/interest was initially through the now long-discarded "but censorship" aspect. What is now covered in the article is only tangentially "gamergate controversy" linked, in that Assange is attempting to make some self serving commentary about the lack of coverage of the previous death threats he received to the high profile coverage of the death threats issued by gamergate. Having a full section appears WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you can say something like "Gamergate attracted the attention of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who perceived the affair as an instance of censorship" (or whatever). Perhaps a word or two on further Wikileaks involvement on Twitter. The article is too long and a digest on this relatively minor matter (if anything) is sufficient. Wikileaks has not been a significant participant in this affair. I would also support wholesale removal for the same reason. By the way I don't think the straw poll format is helpful. Let's just gather opinions and see what happens. --TS 18:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It was written as an attempt to provide some vauge sense of balance to the article by adding content that was half-positive of GamerGate/featured one of their supporters. It can be cut down or whatever but I don't think it needs outright removal.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree His comments were vague largely apathetic, and received little attention. HalfHat 20:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, a month and a half ago, Gamergate POV pushers were going "BUT WIKILEAKS SAID WE WERE COOL SO PUT IT ON THE WIKIPEDIA PAGE" and we denied them everytimet. he one miute that they get discussed in a reliable source in regards to Wikileaks it gets added, but now people want it removed again. No one can make up their mind on this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

What has this got to with anything? HalfHat 20:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this should be removed. Or relegated to a much smaller mention in another section. Protonk (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be removed until there is a much more official statement. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 02:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I would have no issue with shortening it and merging it with another section, but this is supported by numerous reliable sources. Red's reasoning is basically, "WikiLeaks only got involved because of concerns about censorship and media corruption, but since that stuff is totally garbage per I say so we should make no mention of them anymore." Sorry, doesn't fly. Anyone who has actually looked at the source's or the tweets, could tell you they were hardly apathetic or vague. Certainly they saw it as a minor issue, but also one that could easily segue into a wider issue with general news media.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

POV Issues within Subpage

So, I have no issues with the intro paragraph or applying WP:FRINGE, especially since it generally coincides with my own views about this whole affair.

I do, however, take issue with the POV spin pervasive throughout this article. Take, for example, this revert: the phrase is one of the most POV things you could write in an article. Rather than presenting her becoming the "hero of GG" in a neutral sense (which is what NPOV would tell us to do), the edit - using a single source that is heavily WP:BIASED - is basically pushing the reader to a negative view of her involvement.

Red Pen's edit summary was that "it's in the original source, so it should be included". This interpretation is directly in conflict with WP:IMPARTIAL since it implies that just because a source is biased, it is OK to include that bias in the article. Following this example, I could, for instance, add "but Richard Dawkins is X Y Z" into Athiesm as long as I can find a source for it, or add biased phrases to question the reputation of practically ANY notable person speaking about the field. That's not something we want to encourage on an encyclopedia.

Basically, "After speaking in favor of gamers, Christina Hoff Sommers has become a "hero" among GamerGate" summarily and adequately describes Sommer's involvement with the entire controversy. Adding "but she shouldn't be" or similar phrases to it - sourced or not - is pretty blatant PoV and does not belong on Wikipedia.

This is not even mentioning WP:BLPGOSSIP. There is no reason why this phrase should be in this article at all. ↢ RemorA ↣ 19:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It is WP:IMPARTIAL to provide the context that the sources have provided. To not provide the context that the reliable sources have provided is the violation of WP:IMPARTIAL. The sole reason the source [7] is even mentioning her is because she is one of the many anti-feminists without previous concern about games or gaming culture or "ethics in journalism" that jumped into the fray purely to support the antifeminist aspects. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

From what I know, Sommers doesn't support the new wave of "Kill all men" feminism that's popped up. Anti-third wave perhaps. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 19:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

[citation needed] Unless she states that she decided to participate for that reason only, it is speculation to say otherwise (even if speculated by a source). And this the example of a 'death by a thousand cuts' that the existing language of this article used to undercut any neutrality by getting jabs in anywhere it can to deride the GG side, even if it coming from sources. That's what IMPARTIAL tells us not to do. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It’s hardly a surprise, then, that the movement has anointed some highly suspect heroes: far-right anti-feminist writers like the American Enterprise Institute’s Christina Hoff Sommers and Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos. Neither has any real history with video games or deep understanding of the issues that the industry and its journalists face, but both have a very real history of taking the side against wherever the feminist movement happens to be." cite provided, as it was in the article itself that highlights her previous lack of involvment and expertise in the topics under consideration. Do you have any counter sources that describe her extensive background in the area? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

None of us are questioning the fact that it's in the article. However, articles can be biased and we are supposed to be NPOV here. If we tried this with any other article - for instance, the Athiesm example that I listed above, or if someone tried adding a "but Dawkins said this" after everything the Pope said in a Roman Catholic article using Dawkins as the source, it would actually be considered vandalism and deleted in an instant. What makes this different from the above cases? ↢ RemorA ↣ 20:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Clearly a statement of opinion instead of a fact, as such, should not be attached here. Maybe on her article on criticism about her. (And the same logic, that she "never" was involved in video games, should then be equally applied to many of the commentators from mainstream sources that haven't written about video games before. Which I know is not going to happen, and arguing it here is just as bogus an arguement. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No, this IS clearly a statement of fact. She has not had any experience or interest in gaming or ethics in gaming journalism prior to this. I am pretty sure she herself states such in her first video. "but opinion" "but ethics" "but wolf" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's a passage I found from the Lance Armstrong doping case. It's not related to GamerGate, but for the sake of illustration we'll use it as an example:

"For much of his career, Lance Armstrong faced persistent allegations of doping, but until 2010 no official investigation was undertaken."

Now, if we were to add something to this sentence:

"For much of his career, Lance Armstrong faced persistent allegations of doping, but until 2010 no official investigation was undertaken. In 2007, Armstrong and a number of other athletes founded Athletes for Hope, a charity that helps professional athletes become involved in charitable causes and aims to inspire non-athletes to volunteer and support the community."

The fact that he founded those charities is indisputable, objective fact (it's actually taken from the main article). However, the very fact that I placed it after allegations of doping makes the previous sentence seem more absurd to a normal reader. Both sentences are still true, of course, but I've now put a positive spin on this entire section.

This is a prime example of POV. Most instances of POV in an article isn't blatantly false facts or just opinion-mongering, it's strategic placements of words to change the meaning of something. In this case, take a neutral and relevant phrase like "Sommers is an icon of GG" and spinning it into a defamation. If I were to try to do this in any other article, I would probably be instantly warned for PoV pushing.

Ultimately, this is why I (and apparently many other Wikipedians) believe that addendum should be removed. By including it, you're not just saying something factual like "she isn't a gamer", but inviting speculation from the reader to the tune of "she isn't a gamer. Why is she butting into the issue/so revered!" ↢ RemorA ↣ 20:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont see how that is applicable. Our source is explicitly talking about how the chief talking heads for GG are those that have no previous experience or expertise or interest in games or "ethics" in games journalism. To NOT include the fact that she has not had any previous interest is utilizing the content out of the context of the original source which is expressly prohibited. WP:OR / WP:SYN. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I've rewritten the caption and used a different, more neutral source (namely, the French one used in the article from William Audureau, which calls her a "prominent figure" for GamerGate), which is much less speculative and does not try to attack her personally. That should fix the "represent the source" issues. ↢ RemorA ↣ 20:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thats a neat trick. Dumping the existing source and pulling in something from france (Méconnue en dehors des Etats-Unis jusqu'à cet été ) for the explicit purpose that you wont be misusing the source because the new source does not make the same claims as the source you tossed out. bravo! but will you put a caption in context of this new source? " “nation du jeu vidéo” sont beaucoup moins sujets à ces reproches que les générations précédentes », affirme-elle, sans toutefois citer d'étude en particulier." ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That's already in the article. No need to repeat it again in the caption. ↢ RemorA ↣ 21:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

and when we look at an earlier piece by the same french le monde http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2014/09/15/derriere-le-gamersgate-un-groupe-antifeministe_4485191_4408996.html Le mouvement est même soutenu par Christina Sommers, penseuse américaine notoirement connu aux Etats-Unis pour ses prises de position contre ce qu'elle appelle le « féminisme radical », qu'elle présente comme revendicatif, misandre et contraire aux idéaux égalitaires des années 90, et qui définirait les féministes actuelles. « La plupart des joueurs semblent favorables au féminisme égalitaire. Ce qu'ils rejettent, c'est le chauvinisme féminin actuel porté par une propagande antihommes. » Un mouvement difficile à résumer Comme le relève le site d'analyse critique des jeux vidéo Merlanfrit, le #GamerGate attire également de nombreuses figures conservatrices, réactionnaires, voire suprémacistes, sans qu'il soit possible de réduire la mobilisation aux personnalités qui s'en revendiquent, parfois sans intérêt avéré pour le jeu vidéo ni pour la culture geek."] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The point of this discussion is about re-writing the caption in a way so that it expresses a neutral point of view, which the original version was not. Other articles from the same publication has no bearing on this objective. Your argument throughout this article was that "the bias has to be kept to reflect the original article" by citing OR and IMPARTIAL.

At this point, though, you are no longer arguing on behalf of either WP:OR or WP:IMPARTIAL, so I'm not sure what your point is here. If your point is that she's wrong or that GamerGate is now about misogyny, or that chauvinism exists and is still a problem among gamers, you're preaching to the choir here. However, the summary, as it is currently written, is succinct, neutral, and to the point without trying to push points of view; if you want to bring other articles (even just from one publication) into this and we included all of them, we'd end up with a article-sized caption.

So, let's bring this back to the point of the image caption. Do you still have WP:IMPARTIAL issues with it? Or issues by any other WP guideline? ↢ RemorA ↣ 22:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

and per WP:CAPTION There are several criteria for a good caption. A good caption 1) clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious. 2) is succinct. 3) establishes the picture's relevance to the article. 4) provides context for the picture. 5) draws the reader into the article. Despite whatever else might be "in the article" the caption needs to ") establishes the picture's relevance to the article. 4) provides context for the picture. " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:CAPTION has nothing to do with this. The caption clearly establishes the picture's relevance to the article. What you are proposing to add, in fact, does not add any additional relevance (thus adding bloat - not succinct) and is guilty of PoV. ↢ RemorA ↣ 22:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Reflecting the sources and the context of the sources is NOT POV. Selecting out only part of the source or the one source that doesnt cover when the majority of sources do, IS POV. the "but bias" is as old and as lame as the "but ethics." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

old does not make it irrelevant. Also, you conveniently forget the part about where the bias is directly related to media being involved as an actual participant in the whole controversy.--Thronedrei (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

being old and disproven makes the recycling of it WP:TE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait, why do we have a French source? We have enough English sources. Anyway if "prominent figure" is a quote then WP:NONENG says we should quote the French version and then provide the translation. — Strongjam (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Because the English source presented Sommers in the context that she was one of many people without previous experience or interest in gaming culture who became talking heads for gamergate based on anti-feminism. And so that link was noted in the caption per not taking content out of context. So we need to use the french source because that specific article does not make the "opportunist antifeminist" and so we can have a caption that does not make that clear to the reader. Obvious. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't need a source at all. There's a whole paragraph of text next to the images. The captions were better before this insistence of elevating opinions within them. Bland statements of fact are preferable to this talk page bullshit. - hahnchen 23:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't need sources at all. What a novel idea. However, not allowed by policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any experience with articles? Or just talk page trolling? Have you read the manual of style? Have you seen how captions are written in other articles? Why not take a look at some featured articles? The reason the captions had references was because editors were insistent on stuffing them with opinion pieces. - hahnchen 23:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Why does having no video game experience matter? She's interested for the same reason the mainstream press are - there are issues about misogyny and feminism that have draw people not normally part of video games to the debate. It is completely biased to call her out on lacking this and not doing the same on the rest of the press sources. It is better simply to leave it out and let the reader decide how appropriate Sommer's opinion is to this. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Per Masem, many other commentators aren't valid, unless you're not going by WP rules and instead the narrative. If upheld for one side, it should be upheld for all. If its any consolation, it invalidates both the smear pieces and the other opinions and whatnot, so everybody loses. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 20:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Salon also clickbait garbage in the vein of other clickbait like Gawker? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 20:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No, Salon is a mid-level good RS. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Sommers' notability rests on her advocacy of an unusual (and arguably fringy) anti-feminist position. She should be identified as such. Unless Sommers has published research in Games Studies, that might also be noted. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Not worth noting her connection/non-connection to video games. Most of this article is opinion from commentators who have no knowledge of gaming. Stop messing about with the captions, the images are there to break up the text, the captions aren't there to provide an alternative to the text. It's ridiculous that we've elevated opinion pieces into the captions. See WP:CAP. - hahnchen 20:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Possibly we should remove her altogether? She does not appear to have turned out to be a major player in all of this. Artw (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Per above section, I can agree removing her photo as she is a minor player, but obviously not her commentary. --MASEM (t) 20:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I can also agree with removing her picture (as I thanked you for that edit on your userpage), if this ended up being the consensus that we end up reaching. ↢ RemorA ↣ 20:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not just that caption. It's all of them, I tried shortening captions before, but apparently readers are too stupid to read the text right next to the image instead of below it unlike every other article on Wikipedia. - hahnchen 20:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Remorseless Angel, you should not have edit warred over the caption in the first place. But perhaps no photo of Sommers is better than this constant edit warring over the fact that she's being criticized for her very participation in GamerGate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I've followed the 1RR rule listed in the topic. If one* revert constitutes as edit-warring, then I would think that a majority of wikipedia would have been banned at this point.

It really doesn't matter, though. Removing the image is a good compromise, and I'm satisfied with the change. Any further arguments would be unnecessary. ↢ RemorA ↣ 23:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

An outside view

I hate to wade in here but regarding this this revert, TheRedPenOfDoom is correct that it's in the original source. In writing an WP:NPOV article, it is essential to consider the broad spectrum of reliable sources. What do other sources say on the matter? Do they all (or at least the majority) say the same thing about Sommers' role in this GamerGate? Or is it just the Salon article? If the former, then it's proper for our article to cover this using Wikipedia's voice. If the latter, then we may be giving undue weight to minority or even a fringe view point. I did a Google search and only came across one decent article, Conservative Group to Video Game Gender Critics -- "Stand Down", which (unless I missed it) doesn't make these claims. I did come across a few other sources[8][9][10][11] but they weren't particularly good. Like the Salon article, they only mention Sommers in passing, but none of them had the same take on it that the Solon article did.

In any case, as I said, writing an NPOV article requires that we consider broad spectrum of reliable sources. It's entirely possible to write a non-POV article based on reliable sources if the sources we use are not a fair representation of all reliable sources. HTH. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Vox discusses the matter as well — "What's telling about the constellation of forces here is that none of them actually care much about video games. Prior to Gamergate, Sommers did not traffic in critical analyses of video gaming." [12] That said, I'm not sure if it's really necessary to mention in the photo caption, as long as we discuss it in the body text. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Dot has nothing to do with Gawker

Mr. Random seems to be under the impression that The Daily Dot is owned by Gawker. Nothing could be further from the truth — this is simply factually false. The Daily Dot is an independent site not connected to Gawker in any way, shape or form. There has been no debate, let alone a consensus, for the removal of this source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, yeah, I messed up there, sorry. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 21:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

International Communication Association

The International Communication Association has an article in their newsletter about Gamergate. I'm not sure if this is a WP:RS though. If it is then it could be useful for talking about OperationDiggingDiGRA, and the history of harassment of people doing gender studies in technology. — Strongjam (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I am aware there is a third organized activity that the proGG side is doing that is aimed at DiGRA (Digital Games Research Assoc.) that they feel are problematic, which this above is likely relating too. (I do see that DIGRA has issued its statement about GG). However, I have yet to find any sufficiently good RS to post this, but this would definitely be part of that. --MASEM (t) 01:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

DiGRA "publicly condemns the harassment and bullying" of anyone as does every person and organization on the planet. The whole problem with this article can be summed up as saying that one side supports "harassment and bullying." No one denies that harassment and bullying has occured. No one supports harassment and bullying of women or journalists or gamers. Framing the debate in those terms is a gross NPOV violation. --DHeyward (talk) 07:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that the GamerGate movement has been tainted by excessive harassment and bullying and cannot extricate itself from this fact no matter how many people say "but ethics". GamerGate is equated with supporting bullying and harassment and it's not a violation of WP:NPOV to say so.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No, reliable sources has framed the GamerGate "sides" properly as a political statement. Trying to anchor one side with unexcusable behavior is a political tactic (similar to equating Islam as a "terrorist" religion). Partisan voices can drown out the message but it is hardly neutral to describe or frame GamerGate as simply "harassment and bullying." Saying that the views of gamers can't extract itself from the bullying and harassment that has occurred is like saying Islam cannot extract itself from 9/11. Surely you can agree that 9/11 occurred but that Islam is more than just one defining moment. GamerGate adherents describe it in mainstream sources as nothing to do with harassment and bullying. Surely this view is relevant enough to be included just as all of Islam is not framed as view of terrorists. There are indecent acts that are relevant to GamerGate and should be covered but not to the exclusion of all other views. --DHeyward (talk) 07:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Well that's a new analogy. Islam is a defined group full of people that have leaders and spokespersons and the such. There are plenty of clerics and imams and scholars to go "We are not ISIS. We are not the Taliban. They are extremists." GamerGate is an ill-defined nebulous group of online anonymous personages that go on and on about how "we totally want to root out corruption in gaming" without having done anything except foster hatred.

As many GamerGaters go "we're totally about ethics in gaming and not about harassment of women" there are just as many that bring that perception down. You can go on 8chan or KotakuInAction any day of the week and find thread after thread attacking the "Literally Whos" or whatever they're using rather than trying to do anything to change ethics in video game journalism. GamerGate has done nothing since Kotaku et al added clauses for Patreon, Indiegogo, etc. into their ethics standards that vary from site to site. The only thing going on now, at least from the context of this talk page, is the constant declaration that statements by writers at the BBC, The New York Times, CNN, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, among every other link posted here by editors who actually have some fucking evidence to back up their claims is that this article is far from being biased as far as reliable sources go. Every single GamerGate POV pushing editor who has been coming here has been crying foul that the word "misogyny" is used in this article at all and are claiming that all of these news media are somehow conspiring against them and GamerGate as an entity when that is so far from the truth and a total conspiracy theory.

GamerGate was never about ethics in gaming because the whole reason it came about was found to be completely and utterly false. Nathan Grayson never wrote any review for Depression Quest. There is no review on Depression Quest on Kotaku. Nathan Grayson writing an article for Kotaku that features Zoe Quinn or something for Rock, Paper, Shotgun, which lists Depression Quest amongst 50 other steam games does not equate to corruption. People being roommates is not corruption. This movement has effectively ignored an actual instance of corruption in gaming no matter how many times TotalBiscuit says that's not the truth. This movement has focused entirely on women who dare to speak their mind about anything. There is nothing from any prominent men involved in this, directly or peripherally, that says that they have received death threats or have done anything to react to actual things that are criminal acts. Nathan Grayson hasn't said he got death threats. Chris Kluwe hasn't been threatened. Wil Wheaton hasn't been threatened. I don't even know if any indie devs other than Phil Fish got involved in this but he flew the coop. The evidence against GamerGate being about ethics and instead being about hating women (inlcuding how their biggest heroes are the biggest anti-feminist and conservative talking heads out there) far outweighs any right wing nutjob going apeshit over Muslims says on Fox News.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ryulong. I'm worried you're going to get zinged for the above, although RS's do ultimately back you up. The thing about the subject (Gamergate) is that it is insidiously exploitative of false balance, with news media feeling the pressure to give voice to opinions that aren't based in fact just because they are loud and persistent. It is eerily similar to other modern conservative culture wars in that way, where the media are forced to spend time giving credence to climate change/creationism/etc, when we as a society could be spending that valuable time studying science, progressing and making society better for everyone (and making more video games of any political persuasion... and similarly, editing this article into a readable one, rather than contending with the same baseless complaints over and over). It is definitely something to watch out for in evaluating RS content and in editing this article (which I am not getting involved in, just have been following and wanted to comment). I would argue that the only reason "ethics in journalism" needs to make an appearance in this article at all is due to false balance, since it is certainly not borne out by facts and the majority of RS material. --Hustlecat ^{do it!} 09:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree. The mainstream sources always even in their most expansive coverage framed it as "ostensibly, but" and there have been plenty of sources recently that have been "that 'but ethics' is a sham".-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"Trying to anchor one side with unexcusable behavior is a political tactic (similar to equating Islam as a "terrorist" religion)." These comparisons are shit. There's just no other way to say it. They don't make sense. Yes, some people people attempt to frame political opponents as 'terrorists' etc to delegitimize them. That doesn't mean that a group that's being treated mainly as a negative force in reliable sources is really just a victim of the liberal media. Islam has people trying to treat it as a bad, bad thing, but it also has lots of reliable sources that don't treat it as a 'terrorist religion.' Show me the reliable sources that treat gamergate primarily as an ethics movement and either ignores the movement's treatment of women or treats it as a less important aspect of the movement than its ethical concerns -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Most good high quality RS say, first, "here is what GG claims it is about", trying to explain (but not support or justify) the POV GG has, and then in the same article "but there is likely evidence that is it not that because of harassment". The amount of details about what GG wants is slim, no question. But they do exist in reliable sources. The problem with saying the whole "but ethics!" thing as an afterthought after focusing on the harassment is basically giving no credence to the GG issues, which as a neutral source we need to - we absolutely cannot prejudge the GG side in a WP voice. At the end of the day, the article is still going to give plenty of opinions from the press that will paint the GG side in an unavoidably bad light because they clearly have lost the public opinion at this point. But that is not a reason for us to not cover their side's fundamental aspects in a neutral manner prior to getting into all the criticism about it, as we would do with any other fringe group. Even if this is a paragraph or a few sentences at most due to the lack of detailed coverage of their goals at date. As long as high quality RS still give the GG side appropriate serious discussion in their articles (even if they later critique them), we will too. That's how one writes neutral articles. --MASEM (t) 19:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont really know what "most high quality" sources you are looking at but these "high quality sites" dont. The Guardian: The recent uproar – said to be over ethics in journalism but focused mostly on targeting outspoken women who aren’t journalists at all – is just the last, desperate gasp of misogynists facing an unwelcoming future." , The Telegraph "#GamerGate: the misogynist movement blighting the video games industry" , The IB Times Any lingering doubt over whether the Gamergate movement is dedicated to anything other than misogyny and intimidation was eliminated early Thursday when Felicia Day’s personal information was dumped online., Time: Misogynist Online Abuse Is Everyone’s Problem — Men Included , Huff Po: They are facing, as activist Melissa McEwan put it, terrorist misogyny." , Vox Angry misogyny is now the primary face of #GamerGate, The LA Times: "It's time to silence 'gamergate,' end the misogyny in gaming culture" (belated signature) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Gaurdian article and the LA Times are opinion pieces (says right in the header), so not considering that. The rest all actually airs some of the GG grievances and then in the next breath downplays/criticizes them - that's the type of sourcing that still gives us every reason to at least neutrally give the GG side its tiny tiny portion at this table, and not flat out ignore them or treat them as fringe. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Their "place at the table" is the during the thanksgiving feast to be sitting at the kids table in the basement. Not quite "fringe" but moving closer and closer with every renewed attack on woman, ignoring of actual ethics violation, scream of "ignore the harassment and pay attention TO ME!!!". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of how you feel about the group, we are required to be neutral, not take sides or preconceived notions or judgement even if that's what the press presents, and give them a reasonable tiny bit of respect to explain their purported cause, before going into the flood of complaints about the group. ---MASEM (t) 20:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of how you feel about the group, you are required at some point and time to begin providing reliably published mainstream sources that that back your position because your beating of the dead horse that we have to be " neutral" without any sources showing how we are not representing the sources accurately has long since crossed into the TE world. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. When we are talking about how to construct content, consider sourcing, and other general facets of the article, these choices are not subject to content policy. We are writing a neutral encyclopedia and that means that while we follow the sources in regards to summarizing content, we absolutely do not take their tone, or take their opinions as facts attributed to WP's voice. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:V actually it does work that way. Provide your sourcing or stuffit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Your comment is inaccurate. These sources mention what gamergate claims to be about in the context of articles on the actual controversy the movement is generating - the one about its treatment of women. We do that, too, but we're not going to use a number of articles that give 95% of their attention to one perspective and 5% to another to justify giving that 5% pride of place. This article is about a controversy. Gaters can claim to be about ethics all they like, but they do not get a say in what the rest of the world is saying about them. They don't get to declare the controversy surrounding their movement to be about ethics. It's not. Our sources are very clear on that. Your comment is also off-point: the comment I responded to was arguing against proper application of WP:WEIGHT with the justification that people like to claim that Islam is a terrorist religion. I explained why that was a poor analogy. So the articles that are primarily about harassment of women but briefly mention 'but ethics' are not answering my question: where does gamergate have the kind of coverage of its 'but ethics' angle that we have for Islam as something other than a "terrorist religion?" -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

What they claim is a fact on their side of the case; if they are really living up to that claim is where we allow the large number of negative sources speak towards that. But it is not a neutral position to ignore that fact given that that position can be sourced. And there have been sources that have talked to GG ppl to get what they want (Again, the New Yorker piece about meeting them in a strip bar, which was about ethics concerns even if the word "ethics" wasn't in the language of the article, as one example); it's not as great as there would be as there is for your example, clearly, but it is there, so a paragraph or so to speak to their claims without being critical of them, and establishing that as the initial crux of the issue, is in no way undue or the like; it is what neutrality demands. The media is already bias against GG, but we are not allowed to spin it further to make it even worse and ignore core neutrality policy. --MASEM (t) 20:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Your claim that "the media is biased against GG" is an unsupported personal opinion and shall have nothing whatsoever to do with how we write this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Er, what? Yes they are - they are one side of the debate, so of course they are biased against GG. Doesn't make them unusable, just that we have to be aware that bias exists. --MASEM (t) 22:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Certain outlets directly accused by GamerGate might be said to have a "bias," such as Kotaku and Polygon, but you cannot possibly claim with a straight face that The Washington Post, The New York Times, New York magazine, The Week, Los Angeles Times, CNN, The Boston Globe, etc. etc. etc. etc. are part of some grand media cabal to oppose GamerGate. That's just looney-tunes conspiracy theory nonsense. The plaintive whine that "everyone who opposes me does so because they're all part of a biased super-conspiracy cabal to stop us (and not because they've rationally examined the issue and found our ideology and goals unworthy)" does not merit serious discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The higher quality RS are far less biased because of their separation from the video game sector but they still have some because GG, broadly, is questioning journalism, and even if they aren't the subject of GG's crosshairs, they are defending other journalism sources in their efforts, which is fine and natural, and broadly doesn't affect them as sources. But now when you consider all sources written about GG, the bulk of them are from VG and tech news sites, and as a whole, this side is clearly biased (with individual parts far less so). --MASEM (t) 22:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No, Masem, they are not biased. They have examined GamerGate's ideologies, claims and actions and come to the conclusion that it's a toxic waste dump of awful. Highly-respected media outlets such as Columbia Journalism Review that do nothing but examine and criticize journalism have looked at GamerGate and found nothing meaningful in its claims about journalism ethics. NPR's journalism-review show, "On The Media" called it an "ongoing troll crusade" with a "trumped-up scandal." The idea that everyone who opposes GamerGate is "unfairly biased" against GamerGate is nothing more than a self-perpetuating conspiracy theory. That is all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Where did I say "unfairly biased"? I said "biased". They (at least, the ones at the center of GG's crosshairs) have fair reason to be biased, since they're being accused directly of problems, while the more reliable ones are only a bit biased because they are journalists reporting on journalism manners. We have to be aware this exists, doesn't discount there. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

When you're claiming that the fucking Columbia Journalism Review is biased, you've lost the plot, Masem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

They are part of the media so they are going to be reporting this from the journalism POV (they make no attempt at any direct research into GG itself, only going by what they are seeing in already published works). Their bias is however, very very slight in contrast to anything Polygon or Kotaku might be putting out. And remember, a point that somehow keeps getting lost - being biased does not make something a bad source. But we have to be aware that bias in sources cannot be used to direct WP's voice. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you dont get to throw all policy out on its head because you claim some sinister media conspiracy. Try again. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not challenging any policy, and in fact trying to make sure we respect NPOV by writing neutrally towards all sides involved regardless of the press's opinions on the matter, just like we do for any strongly-disliked group or person. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop saying that things published by the BBC and CNN and all of these other sources are simply opinions. You sound no better than the POV pushers flooding this page from Reddit. The press's neutral determination of GamerGate is that it is a movement that originated in hatred towards women and feminist analysis of video games masquerading as a consumer revolt regarding corruption in video games media and that is exactly what this article says.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Please cite where BBC and CNN said "GamerGate .. is a movement that originated in hatred towards women." Other than WP, I haven't seen that analysis. I've seen that gamer community elements have been misogynistic. I've not seen any reliable source say gamergate originated in that. It's quite different to acknowledge an element than linking the origin of an event to that element. --DHeyward (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The Columbia Journalism review cites CNN as sayin GG is "At its most basic level, it's a heated debate over journalistic integrity, the definition of video games and the identity of those who play them." [13][14]. That doesn't dismiss misogyny at all but it correctly defines GG. --DHeyward (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

CJR has the best summation: "And the aims of the movement often contradict themselves. They appear to be loosely coordinated online activists whose main talking point, writes Jesse Singal for New York Magazine, is “how mad and frustrated they were that progressive politics and feminism were impinging on gaming, which they saw as an area they had enjoyed, free of politics, forever.” ... The problem is that when anybody can tweet under the Gamergate hashtag, and no one wants to take responsibility for the movement, it becomes a challenge for reporters trying to nail down verifiable facts. When reporters characterize Gamergate as misogynistic, proponents say those views don’t represent the movement. Instead, many claim to be advocating greater ethics among the video game press. 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. Meanwhile, the abusers and the reasoning debaters cannot be separated. ... To Polygon’s Grant, however, there is no clear resolution to reporting on Gamergate because the lack of coordination appears to be by design. “They resist cohesion, they resist leadership, they resist order,” he said. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

And this speaks to at least rewriting the opening. CNN says "At its most basic level, it's a heated debate over journalistic integrity, the definition of video games and the identity of those who play them." There is clear distinction between misogyny, which existed in the gaming community long before, and the controversy known as gamergate. That's what CNN does and CJR's analysis backs it up. This article isn't about the lack of coherence of a movement, it's about an event that set the politics outlined in the Vox piece against each other and continues today. --DHeyward (talk) 05:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

and these sources define it otherwise The Guardian: The recent uproar – said to be over ethics in journalism but focused mostly on targeting outspoken women who aren’t journalists at all – is just the last, desperate gasp of misogynists facing an unwelcoming future." , The Telegraph "#GamerGate: the misogynist movement blighting the video games industry" , The IB Times Any lingering doubt over whether the Gamergate movement is dedicated to anything other than misogyny and intimidation was eliminated early Thursday when Felicia Day’s personal information was dumped online., Time: Misogynist Online Abuse Is Everyone’s Problem — Men Included , Huff Po: They are facing, as activist Melissa McEwan put it, terrorist misogyny." , Vox Angry misogyny is now the primary face of #GamerGate, The LA Times: "It's time to silence 'gamergate,' end the misogyny in gaming culture"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

But fundamentally, they all are opinions; this is how news reporting like this works. No reporter is an expert in social sciences, and none have shown any attempt to quantify the members of GG to document the numbers involved in the harassment and/or the number that are sexist/misogynistic in a manner that would leave no doubt to their factuality. Their statements are akin to those that are financial or political pundents, making guesses and projections that carry weight if they are - their conclusions aren't fact but they are strong opinions to be documented in their voice (not WP's). Similarly for GG, the reporters making very logical assumptions (a pattern of harassment against women is a likely sign of misogyny), and as strong RSes, their opinionated conclusions carry great weight for this article. But they are not facts. Again, I point to the École Polytechnique massacre as an example of how we can use those opinions but do not state them as fact despite the large amount of evidence to support the logical validity of those conclusions. --MASEM (t) 05:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop demoting everything that criticizes GamerGate to an opinion. It's so annoying. When multiple news organizations say the same thing it's not all of their opinions. I'm tired of hearing this from you and all of the POV pushers.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

But it's true; the bulk of what is being said about GG is all opinions, assumptions, and suppositions, and not based on scientific, legal, or social evidence or analysis. The closest we've gotten in any source is the Newsweek / Brandwatch thing with the twitter message survey. Mind you, it does depend on what's being said: "The harassment has a pattern of misogyny" is a fact, "The harassment is driven by misogyny" is an opinion, for example. --MASEM (t) 05:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

That's because there literally can't be any because GamerGate is not a defined group. It's got no defined membership to analyze it. It's a hashtag on social media websites. All people have to say about it is what they can when they bother to go through the morass of trying to analyze it in its five different locations with people going "Fuck Kotaku", "Fuck Zoe Quinn", and "But Ethics". The people who threatened Quinn, Sarkeesian, Wu, Day, Boogie, Milo, etc. will never be caught. They will never be prosecuted. Nothing good will ever come out of this. Nothing concrete will ever come out of this. We have to stop being wishywashy on this page. We can only write about what is out there and the preponderance of sources out there call the ethics nothing but a front for harassment, which is misogynistic in nature. That's all that we're trying to say on this damn article but every single statement from the media is automatically asumed to be an opinion or part of a fucking conspiracy theory against gamers and/or GamerGate and therefore must be mitigated to simply be an opinion while clear opinion pieces from conservative writers that aren't totally scathing of GamerGate get a pass.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Just because there is no "defined" membership doesn't mean there are no members to be analyzed. The fact that one source noted that there are at least 10,000 users involved in one of the major GG forums points out the potential size of the group. We have to be "wishywashy" as a neutral source, refusing to commit to either side of the debate. --MASEM (t) 06:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

But every source out there points out that there is no real debate because it's a bunch of conspiracy theories and lies that form the basis of everything GamerGate stands for.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I contest that idea. Please provide link to EVERY source out there and prove that what you claim is actually factual and true.--Thronedrei (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The sources have been listed over and over just check this page. However, the LACK of sources saying anything different is the issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how a discussion works. Unless Ryulong or you can point to the exact links and state exactly where in articles the links link to the info is; it is just a wild claim. You need proper citation, you learn this sort of stuff in university. The problem you see, if you don't, there really is no reason for other people not to do the same. They make a wild claim, then just state "check the thread it is somewhere in the archive." No, as Ryulong is the one making the claim he needs to provide the links and quotations every time he brings these things up.--Thronedrei (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

No, they don't. The least biased/highest reliability ones identify that there is a debate to be had, there are some trying to get it, but any efforts to do so are overwhelmed/tainted/ruined by the continued harassment that is misogynistic in nature. That is, these sources at least acknowledge there is the "GG moderate" (per Slate) that are earnest behind it, but in terms of the overall GG controversy, anything they have tried to do is far far overshadowed by harassment, and several have told the GG moderate they should move to a different name and organize better to get more debate rolling. This is a very different statement than "there is no real debate", which would mean there's zero efforts going on and flat out ignoring any claims the GG side had made, which is not the case. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

No, you dont get to discount sources just because you dont like what they say. The Guardian: The recent uproar – said to be over ethics in journalism but focused mostly on targeting outspoken women who aren’t journalists at all – is just the last, desperate gasp of misogynists facing an unwelcoming future." , The Telegraph "#GamerGate: the misogynist movement blighting the video games industry" , The IB Times Any lingering doubt over whether the Gamergate movement is dedicated to anything other than misogyny and intimidation was eliminated early Thursday when Felicia Day’s personal information was dumped online., Time: Misogynist Online Abuse Is Everyone’s Problem — Men Included , Huff Po: They are facing, as activist Melissa McEwan put it, terrorist misogyny." , Vox Angry misogyny is now the primary face of #GamerGate, The LA Times: "It's time to silence 'gamergate,' end the misogyny in gaming culture" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

That's the same list as earlier: some are specifically listed as opinion pieces so we discount those; but of the others all give some validity to the GGside, even if they speak ill in the next breath. Articles are not black and white, either antiGG or proGG; a proper treatment as the less biased/higher quality RS do of those you highlight do cover both sides in as much as the proGG can be covered before switching to opinion mode. I'm not ignoring these sources, instead pointing out that other things these article said want to be written away in an inappropriate manner for a neutral article covering GG. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

again you and your dichotomy that doesnt exist. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, opinions are not facts. An article is nothing but an opinion piece if no evidence is provided. It is the old "if media reports the earth is flat" then it is just an opinion and not a fact.--Thronedrei (talk) 12:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What exactly are you expecting? "We took gamergate into the lab and under the electron microscope we discovered it has a Misogyny Quotient of 127 Lépines and it ranks -27 on the Nixon truthful scale." ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I expect journalist to only report facts and truth. This is why they are supposedly deemed reliable right? For the same reason that some "extreme right" (lol) outlets are not considered reliable (even if they actually provide undeniable proof) if all a news outlet is "opinions" and "feelings", then it isn't a news outlet at all and the people there are NOT writing their articles as journalists but as professional political commentators.--Thronedrei (talk) 09:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

And it is a fact that many people calling themselves GamerGate supporters have committed vile acts of misogynistic harassment, which are by far and away the most notable things GamerGate has done. Combined with the rhetoric espoused by many supporters, the slut-shaming which launched this whole mess, the attacks on people who have nothing to do with journalism but who are feminists or discussing issues related to women in gaming... yeah, reliable sources have all concluded that the movement is misogynistic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly who was slut shamed? and exactly, about what happened -- what act would you constitute as slut shaming? Women aren't the only people that have been attacked, and there are a fair share of women on the GG side that have been attacked by "anti-GG" as well, does that mean that the "anti-GG movement"(lol) are misogynistic in nature since a few(a lot really) Attack pro-GG women? You bring up these supposed non-journalistic women that supposedly were harassed but mention non my name so I'll bring up one and I'll bring up Wu as well for good measure. Sarkeesian has been posting videos for over two years now, not many videos mind you, but non of them have been exactly "man friendly" or even particularly gamer friendly. Sarkeesian might have been attacked after GG begun, but insofar there has been absolutely zero proof that she was attacked by anyone from Gamergate. And then there is Wu, look at the two interviews she did. Again, no proof -- and she admits that she inserted herself into the discussion by posting mocking image macross about GG supporters. And then there are trolls. As a troll who do you go after? A person that will throw a fit or somebody that will just roll with the punches? Why do troll mock jews and people of dark colored skin? Why do they make racial slurs and act like general clowns? Is it because they truly hate these people, or is it simply because they know people will get upset? And if you are going to keep calling media (in this case) a reliable source, then at the very least put it between quotation marks.--Thronedrei (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Until you are basing your comments and article content upon what has been published in the reliable sources your are not going to have anyone take you seriously. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop making everything a POV dispute

It's not that there shouldn't be discussion of it but just that every single conversation is just dragged into a POV dispute. Look at the article, it's a mess. And all people are doing is arguing about is POV stuff. The article is now over 120kB the guidelines say anything over 60kB probably should be dived and anything over 100kB "Almost certainly should be divided". The article is almost entirely opinion, entire sections exist of just pure opinion. Look a a good article, look how much is opinion, but no one seems to care, everything is jst dragged into long POV disputes with no resolution. HalfHat 20:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

uhhh, yeah. the "but bias!" is getting really really really old. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The "I wont accept that media isn't a reliable source when it is the actual object of the controversy" is also getting pretty old.--Thronedrei (talk) 09:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The majority of the article seems to parrot all the stuff said by Gawker Media. I think my browser is broken though. The origin chip says "en.wikipedia.org", but this appears to be parrotcyclopedia. I should file a bug with Google. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 00:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@DungeonSiegeAddict510: If most of what you're going to do is whinge about media bias and force metaphors, I suggest you do it someplace else. "This article favors the perspective of gawker media too much" is neither a particularly novel nor particularly helpful comment. This is now about the third or fourth time you've made basically the same comment in various ways. Contribute to meaningful critical or constructive debate or I will ask an admin to look into pursuing general sanctions. Protonk (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not exactly difficult to suppose that maybe Gawker sources shouldn't be used because they are central to this controversy, they aren't talking about just one site and the like reporting on this they're the central of it all, their entire network. They have a massive COI in writing about GamerGate and the like and we're just expected to just allow that? Also, Protonk, you have been ultimately involved in this page making arguments and the like and I don't believe you are particularly uninvolved to be issuing sanctions. Additionally, I thought dissenting POV's were allowed and weren't supposed to be met with sanctions? Or are have we been brought into an era of Wiki where the merest disagreement means sanctions and blocks should be issued against the one side which people don't consider to be politically correct? All in all, the prospect of Gawker media being used for sourcing for...Gawker Media is an oversight and should be removed. Or if there's some other issue I'm not seeing point it out. Tutelary (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You put it very well. "Kotaku is a fair and unbiased source[1] ref 1: Kotaku" Is there not an obvious problem with this? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 01:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Either way the point has been noted generally and specifically by DungeonSiegeAddict510, more or less with the same crude metaphor and insistence that reliable sources are somehow wholly biased against gamergate. We don't need to hear it again. Protonk (talk) 03:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't like beating around the bush. However, if you want that, I guess I could do long, drawn out essays of what I state in a sentence or two. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 06:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"This article favors the perspective of gawker media too much" is both shorter and more direct than "The majority of the article seems to parrot all the stuff said by Gawker Media. I think my browser is broken though. The origin chip says "en.wikipedia.org", but this appears to be parrotcyclopedia. I should file a bug with Google." Protonk (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Protonk, do you consider it to make sense that Gawker is being used for sourcing in favor of fact in the controversy that they are personally involved? It's similar to allowing the Banks' primary sourcing (that's what it is) to let us know that the economic fall was out of their control, and stating it as fact. Tutelary (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It's the center of a grand and vast game review conspiracy where nobody actually got their game reviewed. I can totally see how the two are related. Protonk (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

And this turns into a NPOV dispute, congratulations. HalfHat 15:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That's because there are huge violations of WP:NPOV in the article. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 20:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and have no issue with discussing them, but this article has numerous other large issues too that aren't getting addressed. HalfHat 22:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The NPOV issues are that we are not appropriately WP:ASSERTing what we should be asserting and are giving the baseless and non supported claims of GG too much weight in comparison to what they have received in the reliably published sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Masem's large reorganization of the ethics section

I object to Masem's significant reorganization of the ethics section, which downplays the fact that GamerGate's ethics claims are widely dismissed and mocked by reliable mainstream sources. An attempt at compromise was reverted, so I have reverted to the prior version and request that you discuss your proposed changes and gain consensus. The opening of the "ethics claims" section must discuss the fact that the claims to be about "journalism ethics" are not taken seriously by mainstream reliable sources, are viewed as a post hoc smokescreen for harassment and that many of GamerGate's "ethics" claims ("objective reviews") are seen as having absolutely nothing to do with mainstream conceptions of journalism ethics. That phrase has a meaning and GamerGate doesn't get to make up new ones at its own convenience. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The current section, and your revision after it, throws out any attempt at neutrality (in terms of not having WP speak on either side of the debate). My version at least gave the sourced explaination from the GG side, followed by the numerous rebuttal points to show why these were unworkable. You also took out some new sources that were added that supported the antiGG side. We cannot claim that the GG ethics claims are invalid directly. per WP:IMPARTIAL. --MASEM (t) 07:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE, the claim that "objective reviews" have anything to do with "journalism ethics" is a fringe theory with no mainstream credibility. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. ... We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. It is trivial to demonstrate that effectively no one within the profession takes seriously the idea that you can make a review "objective" and that it departs wildly from mainstream, prevailing conceptions of journalism ethics. For example, you will not find a single written code of journalism ethics anywhere on the planet that says anything about requiring critical reviews to be "objective." Doesn't exist, period, end of sentence. It is not a concept that has any meaning or validity within the field. The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. We have lots of independent reliable sources, and all of them mock the idea of "objective reviews," considering them to have nothing to do with journalism ethics. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles.

So yes, we can mention that GG thinks "objective reviews" have something to do with journalism ethics. We are then required to immediately state that mainstream sources consider this to be complete and total nonsense. We are not stating that they are invalid, we are stating that mainstream sources universally consider them to be invalid. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

And that is exactly what my rewrite did. In the case of "objective reviews" (which by the way are a real thing, if you are talking applicences), I had taken language that said that that was one of their claims, and then had, I believe, 4 sentences that were basically opinions from the press that begged the question of how you can review a video game objectively. Point, counterpoint. And then after exhausting all the main ethics points brought up, I had one paragraph that noted the press's general dismissal of the ethics concerns as nonsense, and then second as using that as a front for harassment. Point-counterpoint. That's a neutral telling of the facts with the predominate weight of opinions from the press's side. --MASEM (t) 07:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about "point-counterpoint," because that's not how we should write the section. It's about expressly stating that "while GamerGate thinks objective reviews have something to do with journalism ethics, mainstream sources reject this contention and consider it to be nonsensical." That is not "biased," that is, in fact, a perfectly NPOV statement. "NPOV" doesn't mean we treat unequal claims equally, and GamerGate's claims here are profoundly unequal. Into your rewrite, I inserted the statements that However, these claims are widely derided and dismissed by mainstream sources, which note that many of the supporters' claims have nothing to do with actual journalism ethics and This stance has been widely mocked as having nothing to do with journalism ethics and fundamentally misunderstanding the point of critical review — which is, by definition, subjective and based on the opinion of the review writer. These are stating, in Wikipedia's voice, how the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources treat the fringe claim. I'm sorry if you don't like that fact, but it's a fact. "Objective reviews" of video games is literally nothing more than a punchline that demonstrates GamerGate's profound failure to understand what the words "journalism ethics" actually mean. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Except that you loaded this language before the "point" of the "point-counterpoint" approach, thus purposely poising any "point" that is to be made. This is the type of language and phrasing and source use that makes this article a flat out failure of IMPARTIAL. We're not going to ever have balanced coverage, but we certain can do everything in our power to be "fair", because that does not require us to follow the sources at all. We do not prejudge any group, nor implicate through our writing any group. --MASEM (t) 08:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

If the reliable mainstream sources implicate something, then yes, we do implicate that thing.

The second paragraph of creation science states: The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[4][5] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[6][7] According to a popular introductory philosophy of science text, "virtually all professional biologists regard creation science as a sham."

This is how we must describe GamerGate's claim that "objective reviews" are an issue of journalism ethics — as something that does not meet the mainstream criteria to even be considered an issue of journalism ethics.

Frankly, this is also how we must describe GamerGate's claim to be about journalism ethics at all, given the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources that present those "ostensible" or "purported" concerns as little more than a smokescreen for a campaign aimed at silencing women and shutting down legitimate discussion of social issues in video games.

An NPOV opening paragraph to your section in this vein would state Some GamerGate supporters state that their movement is about journalism ethics, stating that they are concerned about conflicts of interest between journalists and developers, and desire video game reviews to be "objective." The overwhelming consensus of mainstream sources is that GamerGate's claims to be about journalism ethics are a smokescreen for harassment of women and silencing discussion of social issues in video games. Beyond minor issues of disclosing Patreon donations, none of the movement's ostensible ethics concerns have been found to be meaningful and some have been described as "nonsensical." In particular, the demand for "objectivity" in inherently-subjective video game reviews has been roundly dismissed as having nothing to do with journalism ethics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph of creation science is a fair overview without prejudgement of the theory by those that support it, with the second paragraph countering that. That's point-counterpoint that we should be using. Mind you, that's also an unaccessed article, so that's not a good one to look at to evaluation for global status, but even there, that one is a lot more fair and absolutely does not take a critical voice and tone to include the criticism about the theory. We cannot take the press's side (which remains opinion, not fact) and claim that we are impartial. We have to write better than the bulk of the press sources have done here because we as a neutral encyclopedia, and not mindlessly parroting the press's opinion. Your "suggested" rewrite is far from neutral.--MASEM (t) 15:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Creation science is religious doctrine masquerading as a pseudoscience and our article as a whole reflects that. Just as the article on Gamergate accurately reflects the mainstream point of view that it is an anti-feminist and anti-diversity backlash masquerading as a consumer movement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course creation science is a normally considered bogus by the press. But notice the tone and approach of that article. It points this out but not to a fault. It is that type of neutrality in tone and approach we need. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Creation science also has a solid, but bullshit, organization behind it. Gamergate, again, does not.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, you added more excessive quotes in the second revision. The point about Citizen Kane (ignoring the fact it was from a VV blog, and not the VV paper proper) was effectively covered by the latter #readergate part that I had already included, and didn't need a super long quote. You've already got the GG side nailed in the coffin, you don't need to add more nails to it. --MASEM (t) 08:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:NEWSBLOG, blogs published under the auspices of mainstream publications are reliable sources "if the writers are professionals" — the writer of the piece is the film editor of The Village Voice, which undisputedly qualifies it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a minor point, and you missing the key one: this is more "death by a thousand cuts" by adding more damning quotes (lengthy ones at that) that repeat what has already been said, which while not against any immediate policy, clearly shows no attempt to be impartial per NPOV. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE when the thousand cuts are reflective of the reliable sources, the blood streaming from "but ethics" is the WP:IMPARTIAL result. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Masem's reorganization. The evidence of video game companies changing their policies (previously and currently) come in the sixth paragraph, when it is obviously an actual product of GamerGate. That should indeed come first. Instead, currently, we have various media sources piling on and poisoning the well, IMO, before the reader even realizes (if he gets to that point) that GamerGate has indeed produced some results. By all means, leave the media criticism of GamerGate later in the section, just make sure that they are explicitly attributed to the media instead of as a fact. starship.paint ~ regal 07:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That's because it's the only thing that happened. The media isn't poisoning the well. Gamergate did that all by themselves. There was no corruption in video games journalism or any violations of journalistic ethics. It was all invented gy Gamergate to be angry at Zoe Quinn some more. So when a bunch of video game news sites decide to just add "Patreon" clauses in their rules for their contributors does not mean anything in the long run when Gamergate has decided its new target is the fact that cultural criticism exists and video game reviews are no longer arbitrary scores like you would get on X Play.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong is correct. We present the views and analysis of the mainstream sources and the "but ethics" as the nonsensical smokescreen that the reliable sources have determined it to be. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying you should discount the analysis of mainstream media. You can include them. I'm talking about a re-organization of the section. starship.paint ~ regal 13:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

When the reorganization inappropriately privileges viewpoints that are not given credence by the mainstream sources, such "reorganization is inappropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. We are required to impartial, meaning we cannot take the press's side in it either even if the predominate opinion. We have to be fair (not balanced) to both sides, and write this as an encyclopedic article and not a thinly-veiled attack piece. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

uhhhh, no. the press is not on a "side" . we are required to follow the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Since part of GG's claims are about corruption in journalism, the press are not neutral in this debate; the bulk of the press (typically those outside of the top tier RS sources) have subjectively taken a side in response. And we can still follow the sources but wrap around the claims as to not make it like we have taken the same side. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:V / WP:RS / WP:UNDUE / WP:FRINGE no, gamergates facile allegations do not mean we change our policies and give whinging conspiracy theorist equal credence to the reliable sources, no matter how many times you attempt to make such ridiculous claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This article violations NPOV in its writing style and tone. The change I made removed no sources, and in fact added more antiGG sourcing to support the statements that the ethics concerns are unfounded. It simply rearranged things to present the issues in a very neutral manner. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:STRUCTURE is also an NPOV issue, and when "making more neutral" means "giving more validity to gg claims than are present in the majority of the reliable sources" it is not "fixing" NPOV issues, it is creating them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

There was no attempt to give the GG side any more weight, so that's a bullshit argument. It simply was to describe the debate in a neutral "point/counterpoint" format, with the counterpoint side being the clearly predominate view. --MASEM (t) 18:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

A mere rearrangement of material does not change the weight given to the GG side. Rather, it makes for more logical reading. In a debate, the counterarguments don't go first. If the anti-GG side is so convincing, any reader could be convinced when it rightly goes last. starship.paint ~ regal 06:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It certainly can change the weight, and that's why organizing it in such a way violates WP:STRUCTURE. Woodroar (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

So you are effectively saying that you want the article to be an anti-GG piece and not actually even be a remote attempt of actually reporting what is going on?--Thronedrei (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If you define giving due weight to the mainstream reliable sources discussing the issue as being "anti-GG," then yes, this piece will be "anti-GG." That is, it will present as predominant the point of view which is predominant in mainstream reliable sources. That you see that point of view as being "anti-GG" is neither here nor there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that media is part a major part of the controversy. According to Wikipedia it is against the rules for a person or group to edit an article about themselves. This article is mainly about Journalists and those that claim that Journalists are corrupt. If you are using journalists as a "reliable source" (see only source) and they provide no actual evidence that can back up their claims, then by using their pieces to write this article is the same as if the journalists themselves would have written it. This is why it is propaganda.--Thronedrei (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

No, this article is not "mainly about journalists." It's mainly about the harassment which three non-journalists have been subjected to by a band of Internet thugs bent on slut-shaming trollery, silencing dissenting voices and keeping their secret gamer boys club for boys only. That is the part of GamerGate which the whole world has focused on, which put Anita Sarkeesian on The Colbert Report and which got front-page space in The New York Fucking Times. I'm really sorry that your movement hasn't gone the way you hoped, but Wikipedia documents the world as reliable sources say it is, not as members of a disorganized mob/movement might hope it would be. Effectively the whole world has taken a look at what GamerGate says it is, what GamerGate actually does and what the real-world results of GamerGave have been. Their conclusions are self-evident, and effectively the only dissenters are Milo, a couple YouTube streamers and people who literally believe that men should have dominion over women.

A wide range of sources — including sources such as the Columbia Journalism Review and On the Media that are specifically noted for their prowess at reviewing and criticizing journalists — have reviewed those claims and found them to be either made up of whole cloth or utterly fallacious and having nothing to do with journalism ethics.

Repeating the words "journalism ethics" over and over and over again without actually making any testable claims and contentions about ethical issues in journalism is cargo cult science. What journalism ethics issues has the movement raised that have not been roundly dismissed as nonsense? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There actually is agreement by the VG journalism side that the GG ethical issue of conflicts of interest exist; they have made it clear that the press and the publishers are unfortunately getting too chummy-chummy as a possibly necessary evil for the journalism side to do what they think they need to do (provide good coverage of games before they are released). But to counter that, there are two things that they have said that GG is doing wrong. One, obviously, is that the continued harassment begs the "but ethics!" mantra, the signal lost in the noise, and why they have said that they would love to discuss how they can deal with the ethics after the people that do ditch the GG mentality and work under a different name or banner. Second, as we have already, the fact that the GG people are targeting the indie relationship with the journalists, while the journalists think that that's a misplaced target, as it should be on the AAA publishers that have created this atmosphere that require the press to work closely with publishers (eg metacritic scores, etc.) This further leads to the point that targetting only the indie devs, and those that work on arthouse-style games, seems to suggest that this is more attempt to silence political views from the indie side.

So that is one point that actually is not debunked, but that the actions/tactics of the GG belie if that is really an issue, in the press's eye.

Irregardless, even for cases where we are talking about a group with a widely taken but published fringe views, like 9/11 Truth movement or Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, WP writes about the topic neutrally, presenting what can be reliably sourced about the view's points (without attempting any editorializing) before going into criticism. Point-counterpoint. GG is made more difficult because the criticism by the press feed into the cycle of the story, and I agree that we have to present this story with an early focus on the harassment, since that has tainted any coverage of the viewpoint of GG, but we can still do analysis of their position in a neutral, point-counterpoint (as I had written) that gives the ideals of the non-harassment side of GG (the majority of them) fair neutral treatment (which was about two halves of two paragraphs in my rewrite) before expressing the predominately negative counterpoint from the press about them (3+ paragraphs on the ethics arguments alone). That's an impartial point-counterpoint coverage that we use throughout WP to stay neutral. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

What journalists have said is that hypothetically, GamerGate could have a point about advertising dollars having too much influence over coverage. However, because GamerGate has shown zero interest in criticizing AAA publishers, they point out that GamerGate refuses to actually address that issue and instead spends its time whining about "social justice warriors." In fact, as several have written, their attempts at advertiser boycotts are reinforcing the unethical behavior of advertisers in having influence over what gets published. It's the antithesis of journalism ethics.

Thus, yes, there is broad agreement that GamerGate is not making meaningful claims about journalism ethics. As many journalists have written, this suggests that the "journalism ethics" issue is really just a smokescreen to cover up misogyny and the desire to keep video games a sooper sekrut boys club. There is no "signal" to be "lost in the noise" because GamerGate doesn't actually care about journalism ethics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

This argument fails to separate "ideals" from "actions". The ideals of GG are established and sourced to be about ethics. The actions of course speak for themselves backed by numerous opinions from the press, but need to be treated separately from the ideals to maintain neutrality, otherwise, that is failure to be impartial. --MASEM (t) 21:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

No, no they aren't. The ideals are *claimed* to be about ethics, or *purportedly* about ethics or *ostensibly* about ethics, as numerous reliable sources have noted. Merely reciting "journalism ethics" as if it is a magic incantation which deflects all criticism does not mean that anyone in GamerGate is making substantive arguments related to those words. As the overwhelming weight of reliable sources have noted, nobody in GamerGate is making substantive arguments about journalism ethics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There are several sources that describe that some GGs are going for ethics, and then in a few sentences later, explain that their efforts are not well targetted, or overshadowed by the harrassment, or even possibly a front to continue harassment. Regardless of what the complaints are, it is still a fact that there are some in GG that say they are for ethics, and it is a failure of WP:IMPARTIAL (a portion of NPOV) to either twist this fact or bury it in favor of the criticism. WP has absolutely no business to twist the knife into the GG case any further than the press already does. We have to separate facts from opinions and present the facts impartially. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You're missing the point, Masem. In the same breath that they say "they are ostensibly/purportedly going for ethics," the sources note that GamerGate is not making any meaningful arguments about journalism ethics. "Journalism ethics" isn't an argument, it's a concept around which you might frame particular arguments. All of the reliable sources note that GamerGate's "journalism ethics" arguments have either been found to be totally false (Quinn/Grayson) or not to have anything to do with journalism ethics to begin with ("objective reviews"). This is what we mean by GamerGate engaging in cargo cult science. They are repeating the phrase "journalism ethics" endlessly, as if that alone has meaning. It does not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't even think this really needs a section, it's somewhat worked into the whole article.HalfHat 16:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I still think the section (in it's current state at the very least) should be destroyed. It's just a bunch of quotes. That section alone has about enough quotes for an entire article. HalfHat 16:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the harassment, the analysis that the "but ethics" is an empty claim is the most covered aspect of gamergate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the cherry flavored analysis does say that. However, if one were to do even 10 minutes of searching on bing or something, there would be proof of third party trolling. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 22:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have WP:RS reliable sources that support your claim or is that merely WP:OR? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That "searching on bing" does not equate to content that meets WP:RS. And why Bing? Is Google suddenly against Gamergate now?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I like the logo and the daily jpeg of Bing. Hell, I made bing the default on Google chrome. Also, its because I'm a Microsoft fan, to some extent. (I'm also a Google fan, and a KDE fan.) Problem? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 00:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop weaseling

By now the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources is that Gamergate's stated ethical concerns are misplaced and in some cases actually inimical to good ethics. But here we are with silly phrasing like the first paragraph of a section titled "Debate over legitimacy of ethics concerns" that reads:

Some Gamergate supporters contend that the movement is concerned with ethical issues in video games journalism. However, many of those outside the movement contend that its true motives are simply a culture war against diversifying social norms in video games — and women in particular. Evidence which is said to justify this belief is the movement's origination in false accusations and 4chan trolling involving a female indie developer's sex life, frequent harassment targeting female figures in the gaming industry rather than journalists, disinterest in engaging or criticizing major game publishers with a history of proven ethical violations and virulent opposition to social criticism and analysis of video games.

"Evidence which is said to justify this belief..." That's weaseling. A debate doesn't consist of a limited group of adherents saying one thing and everybody else who has examined the facts saying the opposite.

Write the facts according to reliable sources. Full stop. Don't pretend that a debate exists when it clearly does not. --TS 17:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a suggested re-wording? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Either remove the weasel words or remove the section implying a debate. Do report on the critique of the ethics fig leaf, but this may perhaps be better placed in other sections. --TS 18:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Boom, there it is. This is the fundamental problem with the article (aside from that fact that it is long and unreasonable, which is somewhat related) and I don't think it has been laid out this clearly or this forcefully before. We must follow the above advice. Protonk (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Right now I'm not sure 100% that after using this advice that we will have the right neutrality on the article, but cutting out the rhetoric that is used to continue to poke and prod at how "wrong" the proGG side by the press (such as the sentence the above that TS points out), and stick as close to the facts will make this at least in the right direction. (The length can met by realizing this is a WP:QUOTEFARM; we can keep all the sources, but paraphrase and/or cut out to key statements instead of including 3-4 sentences of every quote.) --MASEM (t) 20:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

No. The point being made is that the wording is giving too much credit to Gamergate rather than Gamergate being made to look wrong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I.E the point is that the article should be a disingenuous propaganda piece?--Thronedrei (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The issues with this article are much more complex. There's a general apathy towards discussing anything other than NPOV issues. A tenancy to add something from every source found, and opposition to any removal, and unrelated discussions being dragged into a NPOV dispute. Even ignoring these, it's not an easy issue to cover since it is quite polarizing so most of the editors here have strong views. HalfHat 20:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

(Hint: if you think the article will benefit from specific discussions other than "bias", then start specific discussions that are not "bias" related.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

A month or two ago when this article was first created somebody mentioned the stupidity of writing an article about something that was still taking place. I would say I concur with that person whomever that was. Media as I have pointed out are idiotic and bias, this in turn affects what people think. Wikipedia then preach this media opinion as if it was the truth which in turn means that people silly enough to use Wikipedia as an actual reliable source of information(lol) because they are to lazy to browse the net and do some research themselves... this in truth creates the news. I.E wikipedia is contributing to furthering a false narrative. I have pointed it out time and time again, Media's opinion about GG is slander, it is not hthe truth and even it if it were they have so far presented ZERO evidence that what they say is true. Every single contributor here are just using media articles as "source" since this is the only thing Wikipedia seem to allow -- and yet media itself present no proof of anything. I.E wikipedia is slandering people/groups. I know, wikipedia has safeguarded itself agianst stuff like this as it will make claims such as "we don't control our users" and "wikipedia is run by its contributors". It is the reason why wikipedia only allows "reliable sources" since if anyone would accuse wikipedia of slandering they would have two safeguards. One being "the users did it" and secondly "we only allow content verifiable from a reliable source, so go sue that source instead". However THIS is exactly why an article such as this one fails at what it is supposed to do. It doesn't say that media reports what it does, it is written in such a way to make it seem as if what media says is an actual encyclopedia entry.--Thronedrei (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

FactofTheDay I have, the only significant attention they received were arguments about NPOV. HalfHat 20:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I propose Some GamerGate supporters state that their movement is about journalism ethics, stating that they are concerned about conflicts of interest between journalists and developers, and desire video game reviews to be "objective." The overwhelming consensus of mainstream sources is that GamerGate's claims to be about journalism ethics are a smokescreen for harassment of women and silencing discussion of social issues in video games. Beyond minor issues of disclosing Patreon donations, none of the movement's ostensible ethics concerns have been found to be meaningful and some have been described as "nonsensical." In particular, the demand for "objectivity" in inherently-subjective video game reviews has been roundly dismissed as having nothing to do with journalism ethics. Sources are [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], etc. etc. etc. etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

We can really remove the "Some" that starts the sentence. The vast majority of Gamergate supporters who've been interviewed state it's about ethics. "Gamergate supporters state that ..." Willhesucceed (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to back that up? Random the Scrambled ^(?) 03:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) Nope. the only actions that brought reliable source coverage are the "some" gamergaters sending death and rape threats. we will not minimize their impact. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

What sources do you have that only 'some' GamerGaters support ethics in journalism? You made the edit itself. Red seems to be making the claim that 1 fact implies the other. This is textbook WP:NOR. Red, provide a source, as that's the only way to prove an edit is not original research. Anything short of that and I'll think you're trying to justify OR in the article. Tutelary (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

this is getting tendentious . there are plenty of sources that say gamergate is incoherent chaos that has no actual center or unified anything. do YOU have any source that says that all gamergate it about ethics? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Not my burden. The vitriolic attacks on my editing patterns are not appreciated in the least, Red and don't make for a good encyclopedia building. You seem to have the implication that because some of them did death threats that only some of them support ethics in journalism. That's WP:SYNTH, full stop. Provide a source that only -some- of them support ethics in journalism. Tutelary (talk) 04:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Two camps have emerged within the GamerGate movement. Those sending and coordinating threats targeting people within the industry, and those who decry such acts while claiming to fight for better ethics within games journalism. [27], for at least one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know cherries were in season. There are many factions in all sides. There is a group who solely go and mass report dox spammers and such, "GamerGate Harassment Patrol". But that doesn't fit the cherry scented narrative. Hmm, I'll look at that article and see what it sources itself. You shouldn't blindly trust without verification, otherwise you'll look like the idiots who bought King of Spaghetti's fake facebook post. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 04:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh wow. So you completely disregarded the actual interview. Nice. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 04:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

So would you be opposed (and why you would be opposed) to simply saying that. 'Some supporters' doesn't have the full effect as 'There are two distinct camps in GamerGate, those who make the death and rape threats and those who decry such threats and fight for ethics in journalism.' Tutelary (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would be, at least in that wording, because the vast majority of reliable sources don't describe those camps as equally important and for us to describe them as equal gives undue weight to the claims about ethics. I wouldn't mind using the words "many supporters" rather than "some."

Besides, you omitted a key word in the source's wording — that GamerGate supporters are *claiming* to fight for ethics in journalism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Then why do you propose we put 'some supporters' to differentiate the two if we're not going to actually differentiate the two, like you want to. That's a double standard. You want use to state 'Some supporters do X' while citing this one source for it, but when you say because the vast majority of reliable sources don't describe those camps as equally important and for us to describe them as equal gives undue weight to the claims about ethics. It's either undue weight to differentiate the two to put the 'some supporters' in or it's not undue weight to put the 'some supporters' in in which we should just elaborate on what we mean. Tutelary (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You're conflating two different issues here, which is not indicative of a "double standard." This section is describing the fact that some/many GamerGate supporters are making claims that their movement is about journalism ethics, while the overwhelming majority of mainstream sources reject those claims and view them as a smokescreen hiding its true culture-war motives. Because the movement has no unified leadership, membership or identifiable, agreed-upon manifesto, making a blanket statement that effectively all GamerGate supporters are interested in journalism ethics seems difficult to support. We know that a lot of them are. So how about "the majority of"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

So how are we allowed to do it when it's claiming that GamerGate supporters implicitly support harassment if we can't do it to state that they not all implicitly support ethics in journalism? The sources? Tutelary (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

We're not stating that all GamerGate supporters support harassment. We are stating that the movement is best-known for harassment and a culture war. The sources for that are already in the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Naturally, if media reports something then more people will be aware of what was reported by them. However the problem lies with that "best known" is something that is created from coverage. For instance if you google Gamergate most articles written about it will be anti-GG. How many people actually bother to investigate the matters themselves? And how many people do you believe visit wikipedia and confuse wikipedia for an actual reliable source? So Wikipedia plays a huge roll in the "best known" part, as in this case it helps make GG "best known" as what the media reports it as in their opinion pieces.--Thronedrei (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Most articles that are written about GG take a negative point of view, that's correct. You can decide that this means either a) a whole lot of people have looked at GamerGate and seen nothing but a toxic waste dump or b) there's a massive global media conspiracy cabal trying to hide the truth from the ignorant masses. If you decide b), you're welcome to your belief, but you're not entitled to make this Wikipedia article reflect your fringe ideology. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

But that's not the case. Since you're all board with Hitler lets look at Monsanto, pretty much everyone agrees they are evil, including people for GMO. But look at the wiki article, it doesn't rant about how evil they are, it's not full of quotes calling them evil. HalfHat 15:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"but Hitler". All three articles articles are full of content analyzing the subject's impact and actions. With GG the impact and actions have been limited to harassment and "but ethics". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The sources don't acknowledge third party trolling. Now, before the usual suspects come in to say "ANY1 CAN FLY THE GG FLAG", consider the following. Its very possible for people to fly the anti-gg flag the same way. So, does anti-gg condemn the actions done in its name, since they clearly have a defined leader? Do they condemn the harassment coming from anti-gg supporters? Of course, the narrative doesn't like to go into that possibility. It might give people a bit too much to think. Fine, perhaps there is no conspiracy, but since mainstream media is one of the longterm targets of the pro-gg people, wouldn't that present a bit of reason to smear those who oppose you? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 00:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are suggesting, but is appears to be that we need to ignore WP:V and WP:OR and shape the article based upon your personal observations? I dont think that is appropriate or acceptable WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is this Retartist (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

And the evidence for this, as opposed to the far more likely (and far less conspiratorial) possibility that a whole lot of people independently looked at GamerGate and saw nothing but a toxic waste dump is...?

I can quote xkcd too. Nobody's "censoring" GamerGate. A whole lot of people have listened to what they have to say, and are showing them the door. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I've boldly edited the article to change such things, per this discussion. Tutelary (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

So the issue of "some" gamergaters> "most" gamergates is apparently done.

Now how about removing the weasling going the other way? any opposition? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The quote in question

'Quinn told The New Yorker that she feels sympathy for her attackers; "People don't viciously attack anyone without having some deep-seeded loathing in themselves," she said.'

I don't see the purpose of this quote in relation to the article, it provides little relevant information to someone wanting to know about Gamergate, and it comes across as a deliberate attack on Gamergate supporters. Skeletos (talk) 04:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Quinn is not attacking GamerGate as a whole — she specifically directed that comment at the unidentified people who attacked and threatened her. Are you saying that the unidentified people who viciously harassed and threatened her are GamerGate supporters, and that those people should be taken as generally representative of all GamerGate supporters? I thought GamerGate condemned harassment.

Given that we extensively discuss the false allegations against her, I'm not sure why we should refrain from publishing the rebuttal and response of a person who made international headlines for being victimized by Internet harassment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Dude, the allegations against her account for 10% of the article, and the harassment is about 50%, I'd hardly call that an "extensive" discussion. It's not even a rebuttal, it's just another link in the "You're stupid! No, you are!" chain and doesn't help inform the reader about her harassment. It's not explicitly stated, but it is REALLY heavily implied that she's talking about Gamergate, the article the quote is from mentions it and it's used in an article ABOUT Gamergate. It's the conclusion that the reader is led to. If there were similarly snide comments about her, there would be a precedent for keeping this, but there isn't (And there shouldn't be). If it's about "unidentified people", then make that clear. Skeletos (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be kept. However, there should also be rebuttal quotes, to balance things out. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 06:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The rebuttal would be something like "Actually, we don't need self loathing to attack you"? Not quite sure what you mean by rebuttal. Koncorde (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It's literally explicitly stated that her comments refer to the people who attacked her. I'm not sure how it can be any more clear. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I know that, its being implied that the people who attacked her are either part of or are affiliated with Gamergate. Skeletos (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources have linked that harassment with GamerGate, so yes, that inference may be present. It's well-supported. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Causation does not equal correlation. That aside, I get the point of having the quote now, but could it be moved somewhere else where it won't come across as a straight up insult? Or rephrase it, I guess. Skeletos (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry this is bugging me, it's "correlation does not imply causation". HalfHat 09:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I feel somewhat silly now. Skeletos (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It adds nothing of value to the article. It should be removed. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If the article pointed out that this was a textbook example of how Quinn belittle people in GG, then I could see a point it keeping it in the article. However as it stands right now, it just allows Quinn's insult to insult people reading the article. It also might make some people believe that it is factual, and not just Quinn being her usual charming self.--Thronedrei (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of removing it. Quotes like this is why this article is so absurdly large. HalfHat 10:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Remove the quote - At one point, the New Yorker coverage was the only piece that talked to Quinn. But she's now appeared on MSNBC and the BBC. The quote regarding Gamergaters as "increasingly irrelevant" is a lot more on point than the sympathy quote. I don't think the current BBC quote is the strongest to use in the article, compared to, "Gamergate will always be glorified revenge porn by my angry ex.", or "I love games more than they hate me". If we're to continue using the current BBC quote, I would tie it in more directly to the New Yorker threat that it directly addresses. - hahnchen 17:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it's 5 for removal (including me), and 1 against. I'm gonna get rid of it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeletos (talk • contribs) 22:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we're going to give it more than 36 hours for discussion. And there's actually three people in favor of keeping it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for coming back here. On review, I forgot to count you (of all people), but don't see number 3. I am also perfectly willing to let this sit for a few more days, as long as there is still discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeletos (talk • contribs) 23:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

So as to prevent further battles of reverting, what would a reasonable timeframe be for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeletos (talk • contribs) 05:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Remove it - seems like an insult, doesn't seem very relevant or helpful either. Hahnchen brought up "Gamergate will always be glorified revenge porn by my angry ex", that might be more relevant. starship.paint ~ regal 07:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to get rid of the quote AGAIN when this discussion gets archived, if there isn't any objections voiced by that time. Might be a little after it gets archived, because I can't sit on this all day. PLEASE don't continue to edit war NorthbySouth, I know you can do more constructive edits, I've seen them.

Arbitration case request

For those not named who feel the need to weigh in, I have filed an arbitration request regarding this topic area.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors should also be aware that GamerGate supporters have launched an 8chan thread to "investigate" and doxx anyone involved in the ArbCom case. Just FYI. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

They are not doxxing, they are investigating what people have done here on wikipedia, that is fully public and legal. And there should be. Too many people are personally involved in this.--Torga (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If they're not doxxing why are they linking to my Photobucket and Last.fm pages?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

They are looking for bias expressed by editors in the social media space. I'm not sure if that is relevant or not., but that isn't doxxing. Jgm74 (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Just reading through the 8Chan thread now, It appears that they are trying to collate sources to present to ARBCOM. Is that a problem? Jgm74 (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Off-wiki behavior in things unrelated to Wikipedia have no bearing at ArbCom, and ArbCom is not for content disputes it's for user conduct. No matter how many links they come up with for someone with an account to bring up at the case is not going to really change much of anything. Nor are their constant complaints about my comments regarding them on Twitter.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for making that clear - that sounds very sensible. But why don't we wait to see what material people want to forward to ArbCom and then decide whether the material is relevant. Jgm74 (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"SCOUR TWITTER, TUMBLR, WORDPRESS, ANYTHING FOR RYULONG, TARAINDC, THEREDPENOFDOOM, OR NORTHBYHEADUPASS" is certainly a good-faith effort at contributing to a discussion about Wikipedia policy, yes. GamerGate supporters literally can't stop shooting themselves in the feet. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

They haven't done any of that in any of the threads I've seen pop up. It's just repeating all of the pro-GG links they want to be used in the article and apparently someone they're shutting up for saying they should troll me into oblivion or murder.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not surprising that the thugs are doing this. Intimidation is how they operate. That's why nearly all reliable sources condemn them. If ever there was a reason to doubt that reliable sources we use are correct, it's time for all decent people to take off the blinders. --TS 07:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The threads in question are digging for either sources, or evidence of collusion. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 08:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The point of ArbCom is hanging other Wikipedians out to dry not to continue a content dispute.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for opening sentense

I suggest making it "The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 and concerns multiple issues in video game culture. " because it's just too complex to say what it's about in a balanced fashion in one sentence, the current opening paragraph is a bit confusing I think. HalfHat 22:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Noooooope. You don't get to ignore the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources that this controversy centers around the misogynistic harassment of women in the gaming industry, which is what put GamerGate on the front page of The New York Fucking Times and landed Anita Sarkeesian an interview on The Colbert Report. You are arguing for a false balance that does not exist in the reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, North are we viewing the same sources that you are? The vast majority of sources base it on the fact that it is primarily about that but along with ethics in gaming journalism, even if they criticize it within that same stroke of the word. Putting just 'misogyny and harassment of women' is disengenius tot he sources. Not to mention that in good form of article making, the first sentence should generally define the movement, not just assume that the reader already has an understanding of it. "Gamergate started..." versus "Gamergate is..." I believe the latter is better. How else would you characterize it? Tutelary (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

What exactly makes it "misogynistic"? If the third party trolls had harassed males, would it be just "random harassment" or "misandric harassment" --DSA510 Pls No Hate 23:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

when the only membership criteria is #gamergate - there are no "third party" trolls - the trolls are yours. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

then it works both ways? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 23:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Since you aren't biting, I'll just go out with it. If one were to make a thousand spambots, based on the anti-gg code from the repo I linked, and flew the banner of anti-gg, is that any different? Or, someone flies it to dox pro-gg? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 00:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Your interest in hypothetical spambots is not my concern nor is it appropriate for this talk page which is about how to improve the article. Do you have any specific suggestions about article content or sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

North, "centres around" does not equate to "is". HalfHat 08:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Present lead

The present lead doesn't reflect the sources, and tries to weasel out of defining what this controversy is about. Reliable sources say it is a controversy about misogyny and harassment. As it stands, the first sentence in this lead does not mention this, but does mention something about "ethnics", and hence is a product of WP:FRINGE. RGloucester — ☎ 20:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and have reinstated the longstanding previous wording which was removed with no discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It was watered down right before someone else blanked the page attempting to speedy delete the whole thing, so it stuck around for a short time unnoticed after the big revert. Simply saying the controversy has "multiple issues" implies equality between the two"sides", which is untrue. Tarc (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"Gamergate controversy" should be a subsection of a Gamergate article. You are never going to gain consensus on a controversial article about a controversy. The genesis of the hastag by Adam Baldwin linked to videos alleging corruption in the gaming industry, so that should be stated first, since it was first. Immediately after that, "many allege it is a front for misogynistic trolls...". The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The "Gamergate movement" is not inherently notable unto itself which is why it doesn't have an article but the controversy surrounding it does. The only reason that there will never be a consensus is because users constantly come in to say that it's biased against them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Clearly it IS notable, since there's a controversy about it. Please note, I did not refer to it as a "movement". The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

clearly it ISNT notable on its own as no one has referenced it outside of the controversy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence didn't mention ethics, the second one did, then the third mention misogyny. HalfHat 12:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Third paragraph of "Gawker Media and OP Baby Seal"

Even if it didn't comply with Fair Use or whatever, there is no way to stop people from archiving webpages. Be it a service like archive.today, or Konqueror's builtin archiver, there is absolutely no way to stop people from archiving, short of banning IPs from using services. And, if the RS is so right that GG will fail and burn, why would it matter? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 19:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You are right. why would violation of copyright matter? I mean, its not as if the people are claiming ethical highground. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Its not like fair use is actually being violated, under the "criticism" clause. Also, its not like anything of worth will be lost if the sites run out of money. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 00:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

under the "criticism" clause, there would, you know, have to be some "criticism" going on and not merely merely highjacking content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not a violation of WP:FRINGE.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

As no one else has really picked up on this issue, it clearly is a FRINGE aspect and should be removed. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Two sources, one a weak RS, and no further coverage, nor any implication of what this means to the larger picture, pretty much undue weight to even cover it given the more important issues going on. --MASEM (t) 23:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No. WP:FRINGE does not at all cover this because that is about fringe theories like creationism or anti-vaccination. It is not about a writer at Vox raising the complaint that websites are being copied wholesale.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be spidering. Only relevant articles are being copied, as to avoid giving the sites pageviews. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 00:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you even read the piece? They pointed out that much more than the "relevant" articles are being copied.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That explicitly said "not all by Gamergate", so it's a red herring. They're using a service that other people use to copy articles inappropriately. It's not a tactic limited to GG. --MASEM (t) 01:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not the operative word here. Just because they point out that the archive websites happen to be used by other people does not mean that they cannot point out that thousands of pages on their websites have been copied because of Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Your point being...? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 19:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I made my fucking point. The writer at Vox is noting that thousands of articles from Gawker, Vox, etc. are being archived by peole on KotakuInAction for the sole purpose of reading their website in whole and not because they want to criticize a handful of articles that were critical of GamerGate. They noted articles completely unrelated to Gamergate or gaming or electronics being archived. Just because the writer also notes that archive.today is used by climate change deniers to do the same thing to a climate change website does not completely negate the fact that people at KIA are using it for just reading shit on Gawker and Vox.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Well then that's the same thing as people using google translate as a proxy. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 20:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Who exactly is talking about using google translate as a proxy? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Harvard Political Review

A rather neutral article on the GG situation. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Not read it yet but it sounds like a pretty high quality source that should definitely be used. HalfHat 16:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds more high quality then it is. It's written and published completely by students. — Strongjam (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Still sounds a lot better than Buzzfeed. But point taken. HalfHat 16:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Probably a topic for another section, but we could probably get rid of that last Buzzfeed article, it's cited in two places that already have three or more citations. — Strongjam (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this a student paper? Artw (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. All of HPR is written and published by undergraduates. — Strongjam (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, for some reason I thought that it was more "edited" than that (eg with a professor or the like with oversight), but it appears to be UGs to the top. Not that it necessarily bad, given these are UGs from Harvard, but yea, not really usuable. (I've seen several student papers that are more in proGG that we definitely can't use). --MASEM (t) 16:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Move "Vivian James" character image from The Fine Young Capitalists to this page?

I'm doing a bit of cleanup on The Fine Young Capitalists. I saw there was an open nonfree content discussion on the Vivian James character image and removed the image from the page - but was reverted due to WP:STICK (which, thank you Tutelary, that makes sense.) But despite that, I think if the image is to be used, it makes far more sense to have the image here instead. I don't think it makes sense to have that image in the article for the company at all, since the image is highly associated with the controversy and not specifically with the company. Since the TFYC page is very overloaded with Gamergate information right now, it would be nice to pare down that part and replace it with neutral company info that is not ostensibly about Gamergate. I added a main-article Gamergate link on that page, so anyone looking for more specifics on GG will be directed here (and thus see the image, and gamergate info, and so on).

Regardless of what the consensus ends up being on that, I would highly recommend that anyone working on this article take a look at The Fine Young Capitalists, as a lot of the info is repeated here - that article is very minimally about the company/group and is mostly about Gamergate right now, and the page is getting very few edits (and in my opinion could really use many more edits!). Thanks & peace! Hustlecat ^{do it!} 00:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I reverted it because in the presumption that people have stopped responding to such a discussion, it's mainly in bad form to restart it especially if it's going to be contentious. (Like the Vivian thing) Though I do think, since there's more discussion about the character here, especially regarding that it was central to this controversy, it should be included in this page and the like. Tutelary (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Does the analysis in the article about the purple/green rape joke link qualify as discussion of the image under FAIR? People pretty much know what purple and green look like. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you still on about that? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 00:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I definitely don't mean to be restarting the fair use discussion, I am considering the image fair use in my comments. I am only looking to improve the TFYC article and this article - I think it should be removed from TFYC for balance purposes, and instead included on this one since it is more relevant here. Sorry for any confusion! Hustlecat ^{do it!} 00:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If I remember right, the actual design is public domain. there's actually an entire booru site for content of her on one of the booru.org things... vivian.booru or vivi.booru. Can't remember which. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 00:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Right, that's fine, I'm not trying to contest that, I'm sorry if it sounded that way (the wonder of text based communication!). I'm saying the image is unnecessary as a detail about The Fine Young Capitalists, and it is more useful to include here. So, the image should be here, since general consensus is it should be somewhere, and the image should be removed from TFYC because that page has an excess of Gamergate info already. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 00:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless in a lineup of characters from TFYC's planned game, she isn't notable on the TFYC page. Who's pushing that anyways? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 00:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

My image removal was reverted because in my removal reason I presumed it was still considered nonfree and I didn't go by WP:STICK. I don't want people to think I am just removing content from the TFYC company page because I don't like it or because of my opinions on the subject. I wanted to find out about whether the image would be placed here first before removing it from the TFYC page with the reason of "it's not relevant to the company itself" since the image is relevant to this subject. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 01:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, there's mention that the character is supposed to be sexist or I don't know what, so a picture of her should be given for readers to judge for themselves, just like the The Fine Young Capitalists article Loganmac (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Loganmac, you should be fairly aware that the character's design is not being called sexist or whatever. The character's mere existence is considered as anti-whatever it is.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Off-Wikipedia, there are actually specific allegations regarding the character design as well: that the color scheme of her hoodie refers to an old in-joke involving (male-on-male fictional character) rape. Unfortunately the sources I've seen for this [28] [29] are in my opinion not sufficiently reliable to support including it in the article here. It seems plausible to me that her initials were also chosen as a sexist joke but I haven't seen sourcing for that either. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

FastCoDesign.com is an extension of Fast Company which is a reliable business source; that would be a completely fine RS to explain this. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

BoingBoing was cited, but was controversial and removed. I think FastCoDesign is fine though. Regarding the initials, I think it's just a coincidence, the purposeful corruption of "Video Games" as her name makes more sense to me. — Strongjam (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

List of relevant sources concerning the ethics in gaming journalism perspective

As requested, being transferred here.

Akesgeroth (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You should review WP:RS! Most of the articles you've listed seem to be blogs, private websites, or tiny sites with no established history of fact-checking and reliability; and certainly random youtube videos are not good sources. Beyond that, the most reputable-looking sources in your list (the Forbes articles) are dismissive of the claims that this is about ethics in game journalism; I see nothing in those that contradicts the current state of the article, and nothing in the other sources that suggests that they would be reputable to rely on going forwards. --Aquillion (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS Artw (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

unless a valid reason for these sources are given, they violate WP:NOTFORUM (because this is a discussion about pro gamer gate sources. Not a discussion on where and why they should be used. Please lead the discussion into this). This talk page is not a place for throwing sources at us ,be bold instead Avono (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Making minor edits in order to rant in the edit summary

Don't do that. Artw (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll do you think the current opening paragraph is suitable

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.

#Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Straw_poll_-_update_lead is still active, making this redundant. If there is a specific issue with the lead you wish to address (and not NPOV as that's being discussed in multiple locations), please create a new section. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Please consider making the topic commendable, NPOV, and keeping it readable. I'm particularly concerned with the opening sentence which says it's concerned with misogyny and harassment with no mention of the more complex wider issues, which while prominent are still part of the controversy, articles such as Columbia Journalism Review give large portions of to the ethics angle despite not condoning it. HalfHat 22:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Vote Please say if you 'support the current opening' as of 22:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC) and explain why citing any sources and policies (quoting if possible) HalfHat

Stop making straw polls. Wikipedia is not operated like a democratic government. This website does not operate on votes, no matter what you may see at AFD or RFA.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes the current opening paragraph satisfied WP:NPOV and is adequate. With respect to the rest of your "straw poll" question, I have also stopped beating my wife. And Wikipedia, as Ryūlóng observes, does not promote votes, popularity contests, or canvassing. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• The last thing a contentious topic needs is yet another straw poll—Wikipedia does not operate on the basis of who can make the loudest noise. There has been plenty of discussion on the lead and all other aspects of the article, and there is no need to start another section merely to rehash previous opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 22:26, 10 November 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.

"This decision" in the lead

The second sentence of the third paragraph "This decision and others have been widely criticized..." doesn't follow from the first. What decision? I'd make an attempt at fixing it, but I'm not sure what it's trying to say. DPRoberts534 (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain the "decision" is to attack Gawker et al.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree 'decision' is the wrong word here. It's referring to the pressure on advertisers to drop support for sites that say unflattering things about gamergate: 'this move?' 'This campaign?' -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. DPRoberts534 (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Article way too long

I know this has been a controversial and current issue, but the article is currently at 120k. I searched the archives for this topic but only found a brief exchange that didn't seem to come to a resolution. Per WP:Article size it needs to be broken up or heavily edited. I've been uninvolved in this so far, but just looking at the last paragraph of the lede it contains almost entirely redundant information. What would make more sense to people? Heavily editing the article down or creating separate articles like "Harassment issues related to Gamergate" and "Ethical Concerns of Gamergate", etc. PearlSt82 (talk) 06:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Call me pragmatic a pessimist but there's little chance of any consensus on such thing. I foresee UNDUE being plastered across this section. Why not wait until it's mostly over and then edit it down? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Making content forks is the last thing we need on this topic. It should be cut down more but not cut apart.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Addressing (without changing any other content) the WP:QUOTEFARM problems would help. We don't need full pull quotes from every possible source, but just highlight any key words, particularly those more difficult to paraphrase with losing intent/meaning. (The prose is just at 86k, which is heading towards where reduction or split would be needed, but I agree 100% splitting off parts of this is the very very last thing we want to do.) --MASEM (t) 06:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

One mini-paragraph which is too long IMO is the Vivian James colour scheme thingy. Whoa. starship.paint ~ regal 09:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's two sentences at best.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't be disingenuous, Ryulong. It was two sentences and 128 words. The next paragraph is 81 words. Good Lord. I trimmed it now. starship.paint ~ regal 13:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I advocate for splitting off the whole "Quinnspiracy". It is the initiating event, but has very little to do with the current form of the controversy. Racuce (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The "Quinnspiracy" is central to this because this is a controversy over harassment of female voices in video gaming and not corruption in video game journalism no matter how many times people on /gg/ and r/KotakuInAction say it is.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, I don't think subparts of this are notable enough to break up the article, and all cases you'd need toread that article to understand this so it'd be quite pointless. So yeah we need to start cutting, the article has too much opinion, redundancies, and is generally poorly structured. HalfHat 09:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No. There is not going to be any sort of cutting this article apart to get rid of things that put the movement in a bad light. It can be cut down to keep the relevant content shorter but there is no need to split things apart. No content forking. This is an article about the whole of Gamergate because its individual parts are not notable on their own.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly why you cause problems here, I said that I agree we probably shouldn't be making split, yet you still argue with me in a highly uncivil manner. I also love your constant baseless assumption that I'm an evil agenda pushing SPA of dooom! HalfHat 09:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop commenting on other editors and their suspected motives and stay focused on article content and sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:Article size the prose size should only be counted and wiki mark-up excluded. If we do that the prose size comes in at 58 kB per User:Dr_pda/prosesize. This puts us in the recommended range (albeit near the limit.) The rest of the 120k is mark-up and references. — Strongjam (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

We could start making estimates of how much "screen time" the various aspects of the controversy are getting in the current analysis and then model our article after them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Are there even any RSs that covered the controversy as a whole and not just bits? Most just focus on one event or person, the only ones I've seen that try to cover the whole thing are other wikis. HalfHat 12:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

We have several up through the terrorist threat at Utah. Pretty much the only thing since then has been the attacks on Felicia Day. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a simple question. If the dispute is primarily about the lede, why does it have to say that Gamer Gate is about ONE thing? It's clearly about multiple concerns to different participants. And I think RS would back it up that there are fundamentally different goals, objectives and POVs depending on how you view this subject. Is it really crucial to isolate ONE meaning to the movement/hashtag? Can we rewrite the lede to allow for the fact that different groups are viewing this dispute through quite different aspects. Like most complicated issues (politics, religion, economy, etc.) there is not a single overwhelming interpretation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Because those disputing the lede possess a minority view on what Gamergate is. The majority view is that while the movement claims to be about ethics in journalism but everyone sees extensive misogyny and harassment.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

because there is no controversy about "ethics in journalism" - the responses from the sources is just a flat "you kids dont know what you are talking about. 1) these claims of ethical breach are false. 2) those claims arent about 'ethics' 3) silencing other voices is unethical journalism 4) this actual ethics breach which involved a major developer and no women received no interest from the gamergate community. " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

News: The nature of the Internet is Male-dominated

The source used is http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/04/open-internet-closed-to-women, but for some reason, the Internet article do not mention this stated fact. Describing a communication network nature as being gender-dominated is not something I commonly see, even through some pop-culture do like to present the use of the phone-system to be female-dominated. Thankfully, that kind of statements are not presented as facts on Wikipedia, and very few sources regarding the telephone system mention it so it would clearly be a undue statement from a fringe view, and likely quite sexist. Belorn (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you posted this, I couldn't find a single reference to gamergate or even gamer with a search. Seems pretty unrelated. HalfHat 20:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The last sentence in the lead of this article: "The resulting culture war, tied with the anonymous and male-dominated nature of the Internet, led to the subsequent harassment and conflict.". I did not bring it to gamergate article, the gamergate article brought it to me. I just found it as news to me that the nature of the internet is Male-dominated. In a normal article, I would had removed it. Belorn (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure it was added as there were complaints that misogyny and harassment were internet problems not just GG problems. The wording is a bit awkward, it's supposed to reflect that internet communities, and technology spaces themselves are male dominated. Which is pretty non-controversial when you look at the numbers. — Strongjam (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

While I am sure the intention was good, it just sit there as reinforcement of stereotypes. 85% of all Americans uses the internet. Where I live, that number is 95% of the whole population, half which also have a facebook account, which I am pretty sure qualify as a internet community. I guess you could try to limit the scope of internet communities enough that you can identify a community which is just male, and then use that to "prove" that the internet is male, but why do this? The source itself do not even mention gamergate so it seem quite unnecessary for a article of this size to include such statements and then try to build a narrative around it. Belorn (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Article is pretty straight-forward an uncontroversial to me, but if you have a problem with it being used then WP:FIXIT. — Strongjam (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There are sources, and more to be added, that point out that the nature of the Internet is not so much male dominated by numbers but male-dominated in voices and behavior (eg the Mother Jones pieces uses the language of a male locker room); there is definitely sources (and perhaps we need more) that have tied how GG has handled this situation to how it is just an extension of how the Internet in general reacts to something. (There's more than enough sourcing on the gender nature of the Internet, but that likely should be added to Sociology of the Internet, which is only a start-class article.) --MASEM (t) 21:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The Mother Jones opinion piece is not encyclopedic in tone, and its conclusion is polemical. This is not the place to discuss the nature of the internet; this article is the place to discuss the nature of Gamergate. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The point is the nature of the Internet, pre-GG, is what laid the foundation of how GG behaves, according to some. It is important that GG is not the first case of online harassment against women or in general hostile to women eg [30], [31], [32], [33], for example. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Is the nature of the internet online harassment? I think I could make the same point about the nature of education to be about school yard bullying, using a much larger size of sources to prove that many people indeed do experience school yard bullying while going through education. It is a documented problem, sure, and a dedicated researcher in Sociology could likely write a long report about the history of harassment, where it is being practiced, and the consequences from it. However, is Wikipedia article about gamergate really a place for doing that? Belorn (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

In that othres have said that the male-dominated - or perhaps "female unfriendly" might be better language - Internet the habits have rubbed onto the those that are engaging in the harassing, seeing no issue with harming a woman's sanity and tossing away complains like "grow a spine". It is an attempt by people analyzing the situation to understand why harassment was a vehicle by some in the GG situation. As such, it is connected. --MASEM (t) 04:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw poll - update lead

Should the lead paragraph be updated to read:

• The Gamergate controversy concerns misogyny and harassment in video game culture. In August 2014, media began covering actions on the internet which appeared under the umbrella term gamergate (sometimes GamerGate or the hashtag #gamergate) wherein a mostly anonymous or pseudonymous group of individuals without an identified leadership or organization made claims ostensibly about topics such as ethics in games journalism but which included a number of high profile incidents of harassment against women in the industry.

Since the previous offer of a new lead to address problems by focusing our article lead on what the sources actually cover, as most of the sections on this page wandered off into pointless discussion not about the article, a am going to offer it again. Please place your !vote and comment / sources about how / why it could more accurately represent the sources coverage of the subject.

!vote

• support it focuses the article on what has been covered - the controversy - and focuses on what the sources have found notable about the controversy - the harassment - while framing as the reliable sources have for months the "ostensible" claims that the gamergaters are theoretically about. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• strongest possible oppose as this is a full on violation of neutrality. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Which portions are NPOV? and please provide sources that support your claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• oppose Aside from the issue of having a partisan slant, the wording is loopy and poorly structured. Like always, the wording is poor to try to disguise a biased statement as though it were a neutral one. No points of view are attributed... it's the same biased, hacky thing you guys keep writing. What's different about it this time? YellowSandals (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• oppose Sorry I don't have time to explain now, it's similar to the above 2. Halfhat (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose but only because I prefer the version that came about prior to the full protection.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• oppose per yellow sandals Retartist (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose violates WP:NPOV by condemning pro-GG without hedging -> "ostensibly" starship.paint ~ regal 22:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

ahhh, the journalist ethic of "hedging". so it we added "There may be some truth to their harassment" it would pass your muster? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You can hedge it by quoting the opinions as being from the media. "Various media outlets view the GamerGate movement as putting up a false front" instead of "The GamerGate movement as putting up a false front". starship.paint ~ regal 05:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• oppose Not biased enough, should throw in there some mentions like "GamerGate is literally ISIS", like I've seen floating around Loganmac (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  Drop the snark.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Really? I thought not long ago we were out to prove that Gamergate supporters have embarrassing sexual fetishes. Are you sure we can't tie this issue to any terrorist groups? Maybe we can insinuate that they killed Mister Rogers. There's got to be somebody saying that. YellowSandals (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There were some accounts that looked like ISIS accounts (on twitter) that used both ISIS hashtags and the gamer-gate hashtag. Obviously not bots because only gamergate does bad things Retartist (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, isis spambots picked up #stopgamergate2014 by accident only source i found whoops Retartist (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose At Uncyclopedia, we have an oppose template. Anyways, blatant NPOV violation, does not acknowledge 3'd party trolling. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 23:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

"third party trolling" is fringe minimal part of the coverage. the "movement" started by hitching its wagons to trolling. has embraced anonymity to attempt to avoid culpability. but that can and is covered later in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose As mentioned by other users, This clearly violates WP:NPOV. I don't think I have to explain why. [[THEO!|User:Tjraptis20]] (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

actually, at least one person would need to. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as it serves to worsen the bias that already exists.Skyraider (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• oppose for reasons others have already stated more eloquent.Die-yng (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:NPOV. Obvious editorialising with the use of "ostensibly". Patriarch (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

have you read the sources? they near universally use "ostensibly" - it would be a gross NPOV violation to ignore the sources and NOT use "ostensible" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per above.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 05:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• support I think that this is factually accurate based on the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, and better than the current lead paragraph. I do think it could be a bit better, but WP:WIP.

I am concerned about the potential for votes like this to be skewed by meatpuppets... Really not sure why else so many people are saying this proposed lead is NPOV. --Sennsationalist (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that this version fails to clearly distinguish GamerGate itself (which isn't notable and has no unanimous focus) from the controversy it caused (which is notable and definitely a misogyny/diversity issue), thus implying that misogyny is factually GamerGate's entire raison d'être. (In fact, the phrasing of the bit about "claims" states this up-front as written.) This is not stated by any of the third-party sources used in the article (i.e. the ones not being targeted by GamerGate at the time of their writing); they merely say that that's the only significant thing to have come out of it. I say we just patch up the existing opening to fix the issue of original concern (distinguishing the movement from the controversy), if that hasn't been done already. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 06:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Chess dislikes this. Oppose as violation of WP:NPOV, and also due to the revised lede presenting subjective opinion as fact. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 01:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I oppose. I don't know if I'm posting correctly here but this is very biased: "made claims ostensibly about topics such as ethics in games journalism but which included a number of high profile incidents of harassment against women in the industry." The word "ostensibly" implies that ethics was some sort of cover. Also the word "but" reinforces it and makes it sound like that is the real reason. There was harassment from both sides to people of both sexes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punstress (talk • contribs) 02:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Punstress: You have read the sources havent you? where they almost exclusively state "ostensibly about"? And would there be a reason why we should not be following our policies which state that we follow the sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Randyest (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

the inevitable rambling discussion

Try to write a neutral lead and follow Wiki policy. That means don't write in the voice of one side of controversy. YellowSandals (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This "one side" is the only one adequately represented in reliable sources so per WP:V and WP:UNDUE your concerns are moot.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

My point is not moot. You still aren't supposed to write in the voice of a side in the controversy. We've been over this. YellowSandals (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It's the only voice out there that meets WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP when the other side's voice impinges on accusing someone of sleeping with five men.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You aren't supposed to write with Gamergate's voice either. YellowSandals (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Then we write with the voice of the media that says it's not inherently about ethics in journalism.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You write in Wikipedia's voice, you donk. YellowSandals (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

And Wikipedia's voice represents what the majority of reliable sources has to say about it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't know anything about morals. It's an encyclopedia. It just regurgitates facts and tells people who said what things. It is not a guide to figure out who life's bad guys are. Wikipedia's voice is passive, impartial, and encyclopedic. YellowSandals (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the usual argument that "misogyny and harassment" is implying a morality isn't it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It is me. The same argument we keep having. That morals are subjective. Harassment happened. Immoral intent? Eh. I have no idea. I'm not the type of person who would personally threaten someone over the internet and I don't know why or what anyone was trying to accomplish. YellowSandals (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The same argument would be just as valid in arguing to make the article on Hitler say "Hitler was evil."Think about why that would be wrong, then apply that to this. Halfhat (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Would you guys stop going "HITLER'S TREATED BETTER THAN GAMERGATE IS" for once?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you actually address my point? Halfhat (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

We keep saying it because one of history's greatest villains gets more respect than Gamergate does on this website. It would be comical if people weren't actively trying to destroy each other over this controversy right now. Like, if this were a Star Wars Vs Star Trek debate, this article would be hilarious. YellowSandals (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has the liberty of 70 years of historians talking about Adolf Hitler to present information as it is in that article. GamerGate is still happening.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Well we've had seventy years of people saying Hitler is one of history's greatest villains. YellowSandals (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

But why would you want to compare yourself with Hitler in the first place? Why constantly bring up this comparison?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not Gamergate. But no matter how evil something gets in anyone's eyes, if we can write a neutral article about Hitler without directly calling him evil, in theory we should be able to write a neutral article about anything! YellowSandals (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This is why it is even more important to write in a neutral voice to avoid recentism. As suggested at the arbcom case, we should be sticking to facts and not trying to judge which side is right even if the press has come to their own conclusion. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, poorer quality of information does not mean we can assume the press's opinion is correct, that argument makes zero sense. Halfhat (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Multiple press agencies possess this same "opinion" which in any other context constitutes an accepted idea or fact. Any form of denying this commonality is tantamount to conspiracy theory.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No, because they have no way of knowing it other than based off their personal opinions and assumptions, they can't conform this stuff so it's opinion. Wikipedia shouldn't share their spidey senses. Halfhat (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

"If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it./it becomes the truth" -Vladimir Lenin Retartist (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You cannot keep denying that the statements from news media from the New York Times to the BBC to CNN to The Washington Post are personal opinions and assumptions, nor keep quoting people who are so far right to make your points. If multiple news agencies see misogyny and sexism and harassment and say that the ethics in journalism claims are only a front then that is how Wikipedia will present this information. You cannot keep mitigating the statements from extremely reputable and reliable sources as opinions and assumptions just because GamerGate says its against corruption in (video game) journalism so that makes all media automatically against them and unusable.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand what a fact is and what an opinion is. FACT: People have been harassed. Opinion: It was misogynistic in intent/(it was done by GG/it was done by trolls/it was a false flag (These are assumptions)). Fact: Little has been achieved. Opinion: this is because of the cable/gamergaters only want to harass woman because they are evil man-babies. Fact: Hitler was anti-semitic and allowed/ordered jews to die. Opinion: Hitler was pure evil. Learn the difference between facts and opinions Retartist (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. This is the crux here. That "misogyny" or "misogynistic" is an opinion. But seriously, why do you guys keep going to that Hitler comparison?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The point is that we do not write WP articles prejudging a person/group that is otherwise universally considered "bad" or "evil" (a purely subjective quality) in a degrading manner but instead give that group appropriate coverage with regards to the sources (separating out any opinion towards that until later), and when it comes to actually explaining when it comes to what the opinion is, it is clearly not made in WP's voice. --MASEM (t) 04:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

"Misogyny" is not an opinion here though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. There is a pattern of harassment that easily looks like misogyny, and so the press (and myself, and very much yourself and a few others) can all say that the attacks appear to be a misogynistic because of their focus on woman. But until the people that actually did it are identified, and their personalities determines and all sorts of other studies to make a firm assessment if they did what they did in a misogynistic manner, it remains a significant opinion, not fact, that the attacks were misgoynistic. Consider the Ecole Polytech shooting, where the appearance of the attack was misogynistic: here is what the featured article intro says "Since the attack, Canadians have debated various interpretations of the events, their significance, and Lépine's motives. Many feminist groups and public officials have characterized the massacre as an anti-feminist attack that is representative of wider societal violence against women.... Other interpretations emphasize Lépine's abuse as a child or suggest that the massacre was simply the isolated act of a madman, unrelated to larger social issues....Still other commentators have blamed violence in the media[9] and increasing poverty, isolation, and alienation in society,[10] particularly in immigrant communities." That was in '89, and the cause remains an opinion. We are only 2-3 months out, and there is no way that it can be determined as a fact that the people are doing this for misogynistic manners - even if Occum's Razor says we should assume that. --MASEM (t) 04:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. It is not an opinion. Multiple news sources possess this same "opinion" of how GamerGate has done nothing but focus its attention on a bunch of women so that makes it misogynistic acts. You are making an impossible restriction here because it is highly unlikely that anyone is going to be discovered as the perpetrators. Misogyny is not an opinion and all you've done here is shown your new true colors.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, one of the prominent harassers was some Brazillian journo or something. Some pro-gg people tracked them down. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 04:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It is opinion. It might be repeated in 99% of the press, but that doesn't make it fact (See: "Global warming doesn't exist" ala 2000). This doesn't discount that their opinions are the predominate aspect of this debate so will get significant attention, but they remain, as about 90% of all the content of the RS, opinions. There are actually very few facts of note here: we know there was harassment and threats against at least 3 woman + others; we know those doing it used the #GG banner, and .. that's pretty much it. Everything else is the court of public opinion. --MASEM (t) 04:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If the RS rules were relaxed, then articles (regardless of source, so long as they themselves have good sourcing/evidence), then this article could become much more neutral. That's just my opinion. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 04:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

And if raindrops were donuts we would be a lot fatter than we are. But they are not and we are not going to drop RS just so we can cover gamergaters in a manner that they would prefer. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The identity of Sarkeesian's attacker has never been corroborated by reliable sources. There is a vast difference between climate change deniers and GamerGate denial. And Wikipedia's rules should not be made lax in any regard just so a positive spin can be made on the GamerGate movement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Masem, There is an objective difference between an opinion source and a news source which some editors feel contains opinions. The term 'opinion source' a specific meaning and it tends to be over-applied here. So long as what we are actually saying in this article matches what our reliable, non-opinion sources say, we're fine, and informing us over and over that what our mainstream sources are saying about gamergate is 'just their opinion' is not going to change Wikipedia policy. We should not be reporting opinion from an editorial as fact, but we absolutely can treat what the vast majority of our news sources are reporting as fact. Can you point to specific places where you believe we are using editorial sources to cite information that is presented as fact? -- TaraInDC (talk) 05:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong: the hitler comparison is used because he is a figure that 99.9% of people agree he was evil to some degree, and most historical sources agree that he was to some degree evil. But His wikipedia article doesn't say that he was absolutely evil at all in the lede, it doesn't even say he was evil, it says naism had been described as evil ONCE in the whole page. Retartist (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There has been no evidence presented beyond the pattern of attacks that the harassment is specifically driven by misogyny, particularly no apparent attempt to survey and understand the population of GG to see if it a potential issue with these people. (To contrast, the Newsweek/Brandwatch does explain it's methods as to make it clear that they can say X got more tweets than Y to be able to state that as facts, and then separate out their opinion - we would expect that for proper journalism here) However, it is very obvious when you step back and consider the quality of the sources, and who is saying what, that the use of this claim only occurs in the weaker RS and those closer to the event, making it a clear bias issue that we have to be aware exists and be careful in handling the sources. (The stronger reliable sources like NYTimes that are clearly not op-ed pieces stay very neutral though point out the criticism of the situation, when they do, making it clear it is an opinion or observation without 100% affirmation that it is a fact) Add that because we don't take sides, and the GG have denied saying it is about misogyny (which can be sourced), and that's even more reason that we cannot state the claims that might be popular in the press as fact. As to where we have a fact-presentation problem: the first sentence in the lede. The controversy is not about misogyny - that is an effect of the initial problems. As has been pointed out by others, the proper way to frame this is to state that while supports say it is about ethics, the persistent harassment attributed to GG has a pattern of sexism and misogyny, which has tainted any attempt to discuss any possible ethics issues. That is a very neutral statement true to both sides, but reflects the predominate opinion of the press here. (Really, think about it: everyone's pointed out there's misogyny involved, but it's a symptom not a cause that anyone is trying to figure out how to deal with to defuse GG - that's why the controversy can't be about that). Much of this is the right wording choices in the existing narrative simply to make statements that are too concrete as fact in WP's voice to be attributed to the press or specific source, simply so that we are clearly avoiding taking sides. --MASEM (t) 07:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

So we're allowed to say it's an attack on women and women's voices in gaming but we cannot continue referring to it as misogyny because GamerGaters say their movement isn't inherently misogynistic?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much yes, that's what "not taking sides" means, and it's the essence of our NPOV core content policy. Though you can say that the press has called it misogynistic in as many ways and shapes as you like, per WP:WEIGHT. Diego (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

And even that is questionable as "on women" seem to suggest that ONLY women are being attacked.--Thronedrei (talk) 09:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

At the absolute best there are two camps of gamergaters: the 'but ethics!' crowd (who by most accounts spend a lot of time talking about how they're about ethics and not much actually talking about it) and the ones doing the harassing. (And you can spare me the 'they don't represent gamergate' because we all know what the sources say.) We can't give 'but ethics' pride of place when they're the minority perspective. They're getting the extreme minority of mainstream press coverage, and that's because their actions are less interesting, less notable and less significant - because their ethics campaign, again, appears to be largely limited to saying 'gamergate is about ethics.' We can not claim that there is one coherent position that is the gamergate position. We have people saying gamergate is against harassment, and then we have gamergate's extremely well-documented harassment. So at the worst, this article is 'biased' against one faction of gamergate by not presenting it as the majority view at the expense of the much larger, more active and better referenced 'side' that's vocally attacking too-vocal women, "SJWs" and other undesirables in the gaming community. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that WEIGHT/UNDUE applies to the entire article, not a single area. The lede is supposed to concisely present the broad overview of the situation. When one is talking anything about a controversy or the like, the common form used in nearly every reputable source (and on WP pages) is to start with those seeking change to address their points, and then to address the opposition and their points, so that there's the counterlogic argument that follows. This might, in the microcasm of the lede, seem to violation WEIGHT/UNDUE for GG, but again, those apply to the article at large - the intense dislike the press has for GG is not going to go under (and in fact with the rest of the lede, it should be plainly obvious that this is the case). But to be neutral and concise, and to avoid presenting opinion as fact, calling the GG controversy as one about misogyny and harassment in the very first sentence is wrong; the controversy was over ethics (by the initiating side, regardless of how flimsy that reasoning is considered by the press), but the resulting harassment has led the press to broadly condemn the movement as misogynistic. This is why it is best to remove any attempt to qualify what the controversy is about in the first sentence, letting the 2nd and 3rd (about pro and antiGG respective) speak for themselves; this is more true to the sources as well that cannot determine what GG is really about. Putting the proGG side in sentence order over the antiGG side is not pushing their side as the majority view particularly when we follow up on the antiGG side as the broad condemnation of the movement, which makes it clear that's the majority view. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The question of what gamergate is about is split, even within the movement - there is 'but ethics!' and then there is lots of vicious harassment. This is not 'the movement says X and other people say Y.' It's 'the movement says X and does Y.' We're not going to treat those as two equal sides, 'pro-' and 'anti-' because that's not reality. There's no coherent pro-GG side, and no 'anti-GG' counter movement, and what the movement does can speak for it just as much as the 'but ethics!' protests do. So the question of what the controversy is about is very clear. There is no 'controversy' over whether or not gamergate is really about ethics. If it were, the sources would be more split. There would be sources for the 'but ethics' side other than trivial mentions in articles on harassment that mention that some people claim gamergate is about ethics. There would be an actual discussion. There isn't. Our sources either acknowledge the 'but ethics' claims or actively discredit them. That's not a controversy. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

There are numerous NPOV issues with this article. The most simple and easy to fix is the violation of WP:Say I keep finding, these are very frequent. The tone of the intro clearly endorses one side. Wikipedia reflects verifiable facts not popular opinions. "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." Also ". . . opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views,". Ofcourse it does say "Avoid stating facts as opinions." however it adds the caviot, "Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information," so even if we grant that it being about misogyny is uncontested, GG has partly become about if it's fundamentally about journalistic ethics or misogyny, so that caviot would apply here. Even highly antiGG sources will refer to this argument as "but ethics" so clearly it significant. There's more but that come later and there's people better placed to argue than me, so this is just a basic case, making quotes so you can check what I'm saying. HalfHat

Read NPOV here HalfHat 13:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

As repeatedly discussed here, the fact that the worldwide controversy over GamerGate is about misogyny and harassment of women is indisputable. The New York Fucking Times didn't run a front-page article about "but ethics," it ran a front-page article about GamerGate supporters harassing and threatening women in gaming. We mention GamerGate supporters' assertion that their movement is about ethics, but the public controversy has entirely ignored their claims. Therefore, it is entirely neutral to state that the controversy is about misogyny and harassment. "Neutral" does not mean "balanced" — if the reliable sources overwhelmingly agree on something, then our articles reflect that weight. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

But we don't agree with them. HalfHat 13:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well at least you're being honest in specifying that your disagreement is with what reliable sources are saying rather than how we represent reliable sources. --TS 13:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't agree with them, that's obvious. But effectively all of the reliable sources do. Wikipedia articles are written based on what is verifiable in reliable sources. It is trivial to demonstrate, and has been demonstrated here repeatedly, that mainstream reliable sources treat the "ethics" claims dismissively, if at all, and repeatedly discuss the fact that the movement hasn't even made any meaningful ethics claims to begin with. Please see the multiple threads above, wherein actual experts in journalism ethics (The Columbia Journalism Review and On the Media, to name two) review GamerGate's claims and find nothing of significance. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

But while we can say they treated them dismissively that doesn't mean we should share their tone. HalfHat 13:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "share their tone." The lede spells out what reliable sources say about this issue explicitly and succinctly — there is a controversy about misogyny and harassment, a movement's supporters say they're about journalism ethics while everyone else says they're not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter one iota if you agree with them or not. WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean "we" as in me personally or as editors, but as the article. I mean the article shouldn't endorse popular opinion as fact. HalfHat 15:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Where exactly is this happening? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"I feel that the tone of the article clearly endorses one side" isn't, in and of itself, a policy-based a NPOV concern. NPOV is not about dividing an article's subject into arbitrary sides and assigning equal weight to each; it is about reflecting what the most credible and reputable sources on the subject say. The current article generally summarizes these voices in a neutral tone. Your objection, as I understand it, is that you feel that the vast majority of the usually-reputable sources are, in this case, wrong; you object to a summary of these voices because you feel the sources themselves are non-neutral. But that is not an issue that can be resolved on Wikipedia, nor is it (according to our policies) a POV issue. Our role as an encyclopedia is merely to cover reputable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:IMPARTIAL is a part of NPOV, so yes, the article speaking in a tone that endorses one side can be (and in some eyes like mine, is) a problem. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please point out for action where IMPARTIAL is not being appropriately implemented. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

First sentence puts too much weight on an after-effect, despite the effect being the most-talked about once it happened. Section above about the long section I changed and reverted by North, the current order gives no attempt to give any credible notion that the GG have legit claims, and gets as fast to the press's response. (Impartially, we shouldn't care if the claims are legit or not - if we can source them, we need to) Excessively long, and in some cases duplicating in thought (mostly in the section on role of misogyny and harasssment) pull quotes that are just there to keep pushing the opinion "GGers are bad, evil people". --MASEM (t) 16:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, so not anything actually IMPARTIAL in our presentation, just things that when we follow WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS we give the same impression that the reliable sources do that gg is a smokescreen for harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

100% wrong. "GG as a screen for harassment" is not a fact. It is a strong, pervasive public opinion, and one that dominates the discussion for sure, but it is not fact. As such, we don't treat it as fact, and instead write what little we can starting from the viewpoint that GG is legit, and then from the counterpoint that GG is not. We're not going to have "balanced" coverage in terms of equal time for each side, there's no way we can do that, but we can still achieve impartiality with appropriate construction and wording: eg [34] when I made that edit, zero antiGG sources were removed and zero proGG sources were added (if anything it added more antiGG sources); the only major change was to present the details in a normal point-counterpoint format as you would any debate. The weight of antiGG/proGG remained unchanged, but the impartialness of the section was significantly improved. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Nobody said it was a fact: only that that's the impression most reasonable people will get after reading the reliably sourced facts of the case. Framing all of our sources as either 'pro-GG' and 'anti-GG' is a bad habit, by the way. Opinion sources may be seen that way, but calling reliable news publications 'anti-GG' is innappropriate. They're reporting facts, not opinions. I disagree that your edit 'significantly improved' the 'imparialness' of the section. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been observing this page for a while, and I've found it fascinating. I read two good newspapers everyday, but I rarely hear anything about this mess, other than one article and one op-ed in The New York Times. It is almost unknown, to most people. It very much surprises me that it makes such a mess here. Seems like a storm in a teacup. Regardless, I think the biggest problem we have here, partially fuelled by Masem, is that the building of this article is being framed in terms of "pro-Gamergate" and "anti-Gamergate". That is not how we build an article. Our job is not to reflect equally the points-of-view of people that are either "pro-Gamergate" or "anti-Gamergate". Our job is to write an encyclopaedia, based in the concept of verifiability and reliable sources. We reflect the due weight given to points-of-view in reliable sources. If there is a consensus in reliable sources, we reflect that consensus. We do not go out of our way to portray fringe points-of-view as equivalent to that consensus. That would be what our policy on neutral point-of-view calls WP:GEVAL, and is entirely inappropriate. We are not here to strike a balance. We never have been. We are not here to take a side in this dispute. We never have been. We are here to write an article documenting what has happened from a historical perspective. To do this, we use reliable sources, and the facts that provide. We do not seek out fringe sources, nor do we seek to make the article a dialectical form that presents a thesis and anti-thesis. In other words, Masem, your conception of this article and the process of creating it is entirely wrong. I fear you are too personally involved to see that. RGloucester — ☎ 17:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Impartialness is not the same as balanced. This is well explained on the NPOV page. And the issue is decidedly two-sided; the proGG have framed it that way for themselves. But again, I'm clearly not asking for equal balance of the two sides, but that we stay impartial to either side, which does require use to consider which side arguments fall on to build a neutral logical debate of what GG is. --MASEM (t) 17:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Then stop demanding that we falsely portray this debate as having anything to do with "journalism ethics" except for the fact that GamerGate supporters recite it like a magic talisman. Yes, we get it, GamerGate supporters think they're talking about journalism ethics. Literally everyone else says no, you're not actually talking about journalism ethics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't understand. Impartialness means not judging (normatively) the viewpoints of people in Wikipedia's own register, which would be editorialising. I.e. we do not write "Gamergate is bad". It does not mean that we do not report the facts that reliable sources say, nor does it mean that we try to obfuscate the reality reported in those sources. There is no debate. This is an encyclopaedia article, not a forum for debates. It is a documentation of historical reality. RGloucester — ☎ 17:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Specifically where and how is our "documentation" not reflective of the reliable sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm responding to Masem, who is proposing that thesis and anti-thesis be injected into the article. I haven't read the article, nor do I plan on doing so, so I have no idea what it says at the moment. RGloucester — ☎ 18:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

First sentence puts too much weight on an after-effect, despite the effect being the most-talked about once it happened. How so? What is the 'effect' here and what the 'after-effect?' Do you mean the accusations against Quinn are the 'effect?' Can you support your claim that the 'effect' was most talked about in reliable sources 'once it happened?' Certainly there was a metric shitton of online gossip about Quinn, but that's not relevant because it's not what we have sources for: whether it happened or not is not as important as whether reliable sources found it significant enough to report on. Please point to places where we are 'pushing the opinion "GGers are bad, evil people;"' reporting reliably sourced information that is likely to lead a reader to think less of gamergate is not 'pushing an opinion,' and our article does need to discuss every issue it covers in the way the sources do, which means we can't hold back 'negative' information because it might make people think gamergate is 'bad.' If reality has a distinct anti-GG bias, that's not our fault. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

What the first sentence is doing is saying "The Iraq War was about the US spreading democracy" or "...getting cheap oil"; it's certainly widely believed in public opinion to be that but there's an actual chain of events that include the WMD, insurgency, etc. The problem here is that we don't have a good chain of reportable events/concepts prior to Gjoni's post to know the situation accurately through RSes, so we have an event that only really came to light with the charges against Quinn and then the subsequent harassment. And while the proGG built up their case about ethics (as little as their was) the harassment continued and the calls of misogyny started to fly. As such we have a controversy with no well-established cause but clearly two sides. So the way to get the first paragaph in the lead impartial is simply to move the calls about harassment and misogyny to the third sentence where the press's reaction to the situation since that is a clear dominating factor in the debate. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a valid comparison. Do the majority of reliable sources say that the Iraq war was about spreading democracy or getting cheap oil? It doesn't matter that we don't have 'a good chain of reportable events' prior to Gjoni's accusations against Quinn being blown up into a large-scale harassment campaign: we report on the events we have sources for. If there were no sources on the 'chain of events' leading up to the Iraq war we wouldn't be writing about those on Wikipedia, either. We're not going to 'bury the lead' because you think it's not fair that the press isn't talking enough about whatever 'chain of events' you think are the gamergate analog to the leadup to the Iraq war. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I would also note that this isn't an article about the hashtag, but about the controversy. The controversy primarily concerns misogyny and harassment, and why it's notable. Otherwise this article would have never survived deletion. — Strongjam (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, "impartial" is not the same as "balanced". Here is what I mean:

• Current lead para: The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 and concerns misogyny and harassment in video game culture. Many supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #gamergate) say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism. Commentators and critics have said that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture.
• Impartial lead para: The Gamergate controversy began in the video game culture in August 2014. Many supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #gamergate) say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism. Commentators and critics have said that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture, and mainstream media has widely condemned the movement as unorganized, sexist and misogynistic due to continued harassment and threats towards female personalities in the video game industry despite their purported claims of ethics concerns.

It's a standard "point-counterpoint" style, and even with the added material that is anti-GG, clearly shows which way the sources are balanced. It's just that flip of the wording that flips it from partial to impartial without changing the balance. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Your proposed lead para is distinctly parial in that it gives undue weight to an aspect of the 'controversy' that has essentially no reliable sources. This isn't an article about gamergate, it's an article about the controversy surrounding gamergate. The "standard point-counterpoint" style you're proposing gives the impression that the gamergate controversy is over whether gamergate is about misogyny or ethics. If that were true, there would be far more sources discussing and examining the ethics issues. The controversy is about the misogynistic harassment which is well established by reliable sources as the primary effect of the movement, not 'is it ethics or is it misogyny?' No source is giving any serious attention to the claim that gamergate is about ethics beyond reporting that some people say that and then going on to discuss the women who are being 'ethically' hounded out of their careers. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. The controversy is not about harassment/misogyny, because save for a vocal minority and/or trolls doing the harassment, even GG supporters agree that harassment/misogyny is bad, and there's question it should not be happening. Harassment/misogyny is a prominent result of the controversy, but it is not the central topi of it. A controversy needs (at least) two sides to be such. In this case, the controversy at it's core is about the supporters' ethical concerns, which have then subsequently underwhelming by the lack of any specifics or where they have been specifics, the lack of reasonable actions to take for them, the lack of organization, and the fact harassment and misogynistic threats continue, tainting any message that the GG side has - that's the other side of the debate. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. There is no controversy over ethics. The 'controversy' is not 'is gamergate about ethics or harassment?' If that were the case our sources would be giving the ethics issue serious attention. They're not. The controversy is over the movement's abusive behavior. That's what the sources are about. That's why the article was able to pass the GNG. It's a controversy over the gaming community's treatment of women. 'But ethics' is a side issue and should absolutely not be given equal weight in the lede in the name of 'impartiality.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes there has been controversy over the ethics - there are two clear points: conflicts of interest, and writing "objective reviews". These points, alone, have been criticized and refuted by the antiGG side which we have in the article - that's the crux of the actual debate. What has happened is that the controversy has been overwhelmed by the actions or lack of thereof by those under the GG banner, giving a huge amount of coverage about the harassment, the effects that has had, and overwhelmed the core debate. Again "impartial" is not the same as "weight". It is about not taking a side in the situation. By immediately identifying the controversy as one side has decided it should be and not explaining the other side in the same sentence, and in WP's voice, that's not impartial. --MASEM (t) 18:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let's see some sources that treat gamergate as a controversy about ethics, as opposed to mentioning that some people say it's about ethics and then going on to discuss the harassment coming out of the movement. If the bulk of articles written about this controversy are primarily discussing harassment, then that is what the controversy is about. Trivial mentions of ethics claims in articles about harassment don't make this into a controvert about ethics. Can you find some articles that briefly mention the harassment of women and go on to discuss gamergate's ethics claims as something other than vague and ill-informed handwaving? -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"as opposed to mentioning that some people say it's about ethics and then going on to discuss the harassment coming out of the movement." - There are no problems with using those articles - they actually are the voice of the highest quality RS/least biased in the debate. You cannot dismiss those as "trivial" mentions of the ethics, because they actually do identify them and then, like an impartial source, explain why others find them bad. That's the controversy. --MASEM (t) 18:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Masem, "objective reviews" are not even an issue of journalism ethics, period. That is an indisputable fact, the end. There is no such thing as an "objective review" to begin with. You will not find a single code of journalism ethics which says anything about the alleged concept, nor will you find any expert in journalism ethics giving the slightest credence to this claim. Again, it's a demonstration of GamerGate's cargo cult science approach to "journalism ethics." They are repeating words which they do not even understand the meaning of. Stop demanding that we treat fringe, unsupported nonsense as a meaningful argument. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Whenever people talk about "objective reviews" I'm reminded of Jim Sterling's 100% Objective Review of Final Fantasy XIII. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes there is. An objective review is something Consumer reports does - they will rate things on a very strong objective scale (with some subjective aspects) and present a final score, with some but minimum commentary. But as well described by sources countering this point, video games, if art, cannot be reviewed in the same way, and this point has clearly been highlighted by the press. But that means that we can identify the want of objective reviews as a key starting point. The GG logic that I understand is that it is want reviews that are objective in that they might consider the story and provide praise or commentary on that, but the review should also look at all other facets and if it is something like a notgame, it needs to be called out and rated negatively on that. Of course, I'm sure many of us agree that's a terrible standard for reviews, but it is a point that we can document on their side. It might be "junk science" but just like our other articles on notable conspiracy theories and fringe topics, we at least present their arguments without comment first, and then give all the counterpoints and criticism about it. This is how we do appropriate treat fringe topics. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, Consumer Reports' reviews are not "objective" and you will never find Consumer Reports stating that their reviews are objective.

Masem, you're still failing to get the point. At best, this argument is an opinion about the way people write reviews. It has nothing whatsoever to do with actual mainstream conceptions of journalism ethics, period, the end. Arguing that people should write reviews differently just factually, fundamentally is not making a serious argument about journalism ethics. It's making an argument about someone's personal preference.

That's great that GamerGaters want a certain kind of review. They're welcome to write their own reviews that make them happy. They're not entitled to demand that everyone else write reviews the way they want, or else. That is not an issue of journalism ethics except insofar as GamerGate is unethically attempting to impose its opinion of what reviews should be on everyone else. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually it does, in their logic, because when they ignore all facets of a game and only focus on a story element (for example, in the case of Gone Home or DQ), the GG side states that they are not performing their (paraphrasing) proper ethical duties as an objective review for a consumer. Again, some of this starts to get into Insane Troll Logic (borrowing a phrase from TV Tropes) that I'm sure most of us cannot agree with, but that is all sourcable with good RSes that this is what they believe. It is no different from those demanding Obama's US birth certificate in terms of fringe, but we still need to give them the time of day. (And yes, actually Consumer Reports prides itself on objective testing, including changing policy when they were accosted with reviewing a pre-production iPad and reported they will no longer review pre-production models [35]). --MASEM (t) 20:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, and now you're getting to the heart of it - "in their logic," and we are not required to accept or give credence to their WP:FRINGE "logic" which no one else gives credence to. And no, there is no such thing as an objective review, the end. Masem, "objective testing" is not the same as "objective review." Let's hypothetically say we're reviewing clothes washers. Specific tests may be objective (how many pairs of pants fit into a washer), but their review conclusions are not. Weighting the results of those different objective tests is an inherently-subjective process. What if one washer gets clothes 5% cleaner, but takes 7% longer than the next washer, uses 3% more water and holds 1% fewer clothes? Which washer is "objectively" better? Well, kind of depends, right? - what's more important, speed of the wash, thoroughness of the wash, water usage or capacity? See, that's a subjective opinion which someone is going to end up choosing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. To be impartial on a fringe topic, we do have to explain the fringe-y side in so much as RSes do - otherwise it is an attack article. See, for example Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Of course, here, we have a tiny handful of good RSes that go into detail so we're not going to be spending a significant amount of time on the fringe view (as I've said elsehwere, what might amount to 3-4 paragraphs at most given present sourcing), and ten times that many sources that go "while they have these concerns, they aren't workable" or "while they have these concerns, their actions don't seem to be bear out". The better RSes do not simply dismiss the GG side with no coverage at all, but like what we want to do, they don't spend a lot of time to justify that they are valid and move onto the criticism of the movement. And on the CS part: this is what games want - they want games rated in 5-8 different areas and so they can go "oh this game has a great story but no gameplay, I'll pass", which is the same as CS's ratings, but yeah, I concede that's the not the same as reviews, but this is how GG is presenting their case, with the oxymoron of "objective reviews". --MASEM (t) 20:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, we have to explain it as the RSes do. And no reliable source explains GamerGate's obsession with "objective reviews" as a journalism ethics issue. They explain it, as The Washington Post does, as a difference of opinion over whether games are art, specifically stating (GamerGate supporters) should also understand what it is that they are seeking, rather than pretending that they pursue some sort of more ethical model of journalism. I have no problem with writing "Gamergate supporters believe "objective reviews" are a journalism ethics issue," so long as we follow it up with "but everyone else rejects that claim." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with writing "Gamergate supporters believe "objective reviews" are a journalism ethics issue," so long as we follow it up with "but everyone else rejects that claim." - for the most part, I agree exactly with this (the "but everyone else..." may not be the same sentence but it will absolutely be the next logical thought in the following sentence, but that's a grammar issue). Per WP:FRINGE, specifically "Reporting on the levels of acceptance", we have Wales' way to do things like this : "Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it." (my emphasis) In this case, the amount of ink the minority view will get is tiny, but we still report on the little there can be with some bit of respect that what the GG side says is what they believe. And then we get to pile on the counterpoints. Doing this at the few points in the article (the lead para, and the section on their ethics concerns like my rewrite) would take away one major impartial aspect I have with the article. The majority would would be handled by looking to trim down quotes from full on multi-sentence pulls and reducing the number used. That would leave various minor points that would, I feel, would be much easier to resolve, as long as it is understood we should be approaching this like FRINGE, and that until more proGG sources come about, we aren't going to have any ability to support the proGG argument outside the few statements already present in the article. --MASEM (t) 21:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"until more proGG sources come about". Good luck with that. soon we will start seeing the academic papers and while there are departments of ethics and journalism and women's studies, there are no departments of "but ethics". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not holding my breath, unless something massively changes in the GG moderates' approach. That said, I would expect in the future (years, not months) academics will explain the awkward ideals that GG sought, because there are interesting social aspects there in terms of whole "death of gamer identity" aspect and how it manifested itself. But we absolutely for sure have to wait for those to give any more details on what GG listed beyond what is already sourced in the article. --MASEM (t) 04:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It isn't interesting at all. It is what we call being a "reactionary", and has been a common response to such fates for centuries. RGloucester — ☎ 14:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Arb Break

This "strong, pervasive public opinion" is the majority view on Gamergate as a movement. Whether or not that opinion is the 100% truth is not what Wikipedia is set out to determine. It is not our place to give the "ethics in video game journalism" a more prominent place or in any stretch of the policies and guidelines to downplay the fact that everyone sees it as a group of people involved in misogynistic harassment using their claims of corrupt journalists on a bunch of video game websites where they're just pissed off that they dare not to just give random games 10 out of 10 and be done with it but instead say "why does this character have large tits" or give any focus to non-traditional games with narrative themes that aren't going to show up in Call of Duty Modern Warfare, Saints Row Gat out of Hell, or the next Elder Scrolls game. Gamergate's focus is on not liking actual reviews of a game's story and praise of games that focus entirely on story and not on 360noscoping an alien's head off. So Masem, please stop trying to be a moderate here.

GG is not and has never been a legitimate cause. It started with falsely ledged complaints that Zoe Quinn used her feminine wiles to get positive coverage for Depression Quest that never existed on Kotaku so then they change their story and complain about Quinn being quoted heavily in the GAME_JAM piece and Depression Quest getting some sort of vague preferential mentioning on a list of 50 games that were getting full releases on Steam in his work as a writer for Rock Paper Shotgun as their evidence of "corruption". And when none of those claims were treated seriously and were debunked by Grayson admitting his relationship with Quinn and subsequent timeline that showed he never wrote about her after they began dating or any of Gamergate's other claims of corruption or games journalists being too close to developers (the fact that an indie dev is someone's roommate is the only one that comes to mind right now) were also never paid any mind by anyone, they set their sights on attacking all of the websites that wrote scathing pieces regarding their actions and how the notion of the "gamer" being a white male was dead we are at where we are now. Gawker is no longer a reliable source on any matters regarding Gamergate because of Operation Baby Seal. Gamasutra and Time aren't reliable sources (according to Gamergate) because of Leigh Alexander. No prior existing media is a reliable source because the media is protecting its own because people at the BBC and CNN would give a shit about a bunch of video gaming news blogs.

Everything negative about Gamergate is an opinion because the people doing all of the negative things can't possibly be part of Gamergate. No one in Gamergate sent in that threat to USU. It was some Brazilian clickbait blogger. Gamergate was never mentioned by the people posting the addresses of Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, Felicia Day, or anyone else that's come up. Nor was Gamergate ever mentioned in the threats to the first three women's lives. So these events surely can never be related. That's Gamergate's incredibly skewed point of view here. It's been called out as the No true Scotsman fallacy again and again.

But now their focus is on fucking with Wikipedia's meta processes as much as possible, as is evident of their "Operation Exit the Dragon" to get me out of the picture which included finding my accounts on Photobucket and last.fm in their weird backwards way of proving Encyclopedia Dramatica's page on me where it says I was sexually involved with Danny which was based on the ravings of LamontStormstar on Wikipedia Review. Or their current pisspoor attempts to dig up anything against us, and make sure to implore people that they mean on Wikipedia and not in our social media accounts such as their constant and repeated attempts to discredit me by linking to the Tweets I made where I used "fag" and cursed out any fucking GamerGater that went and complained at me after that as evidence that I'm biased and therefore should not be allowed to edit this page. ANd then when they ask people to do the Wikipedia violation collection they just come up with lists of links which Akesgeroth posted on the arbcom request page and again below and obviously came from 8chan because I saw that shit last night.

They want someone who isn't one of them already (either an SPA or an account revived to use its age to become involved with editing the semiprotected articles and talk pages) to legitimize their opinions, and sadly, you've been doing this Masem. You are pushing and urging editors to make sure "neutrality" ensures that Gamergate's minority view points are given equal footing on this page by treating this issue as a debate that hasn't already come to its conclusion weeks ago. The majority view point is that Gamergate is a conservative backlash against social minorities (women and the LGBT community) daring to make alternatives to the AAA studio games that make billions of dollars and how the hardcore gamers don't like the games and thinktheysho uldn't be given any press because there's no challenging gameplay and they're just stories. It's why the movement has been co-opted by conservative voices that have done things completely antithetical to Gamergate's goals or who have never said anything about video games in the past but see Gamergate fighting feminism and saw an opening to get a new audience. They are legitimizing the movement despite not giving a shit about their ideals, backpedalling on things they said that completely went against the group in the past.

So people coming here can go on and on about the big bad Wikipedians, the Big Five, putting them down and trying to prevent them from skewing the article to their POV when policies and guidelines almost expressly forbid it. They can come praise Based Masem for paying attention to them and attempting to get the article balanced they way they want to. And they can completely ignore other editors who are already on their side unless they happen to become a shill or a sell out for pointing out the threads that they're making on /gg/ or r/KotakuInAction that are attempting to disrupt Wikipedia. This is not how we should allow the article to continue to be edited. The only complaints of lack of neutrality are coming from Gamergate movement members who don't like how they're being portrayed here, which is just reflecting the mainstream view points on the movement.

No matter how many times they compare the coverage of various historical figures and hate groups that don't include the word "evil" and say it is comparable to the word "misogyny" on this page or make references to white supremacist websites to try to discount the staff writers of websites they don't want to be used, they should not be allowed to inundate this page and its editors and keep it in stasis in a way that delegitimizes the complaints against them by having the NPOV tag plastered at the top of the article. The only reason other controversial topics don't encounter this issue as we have on Gamergate and related pages is because the other issues don't have a majority of people involved who are web savvy enough to make this much of an impact. We will never satisfy the Gamergate movement and the #NotYourShield or /gg/ or r/KotakuInAction in what they want for this page to cover and say about them. That does not mean it should be consistently tagged with {{NPOV}}. It is a Sisyphean effort to deal with Gamergate in any fashion. No matter how many concessions you can make with someone nor sanctions leveled against another, there is someone to replace them and make new arguments and accusations to deal with. It's exhausting to deal with this article, on Wikipedia, where you see the same shit repeated day in and day out by a brand new account who managed to get autoconfirmed, and off, when you get people sending you tweets constantly to taunt or harass or digging through your old internet stomping grounds to find evidence against you or your address to send you hundreds of dollars of furry fandom-made dildos. We need to end this now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Halfhat, you are not "finding violations of WP:SAY:" you are simply implementing your apparently flawed understanding of that section of the MOS to replace perfectly acceptable and neutral words with 'say.' WP:SAY does not mandate that we use absurdly repetitive language and never use any other word where we could use 'say' or 'said:' it prohibits us from using loaded terms like 'claimed' and 'explained.' "Argued" is also perfectly fine under that policy, because it doesn't make any suggestion as to the arguer's degree of correctness, and 'stated' is explicitly permitted by the guideline. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay my mistake stated is allowed, however "argued" and "noted" are common here and both less neutral (in opposite directions), there is also the odd other poor words like "explained". HalfHat 17:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Argued isn't mentioned, however there was a minidispute after I replaced various cases of "noted" with argued, the agreement seemed to be to avoid both. HalfHat 20:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe use "wrote" some more? Nothing wrong with "said" but it would be nice to mix it up a bit. — Strongjam (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's an example of multiple WP:Say violations I just fixed. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gamergate_controversy&diff=633266565&oldid=633266246 HalfHat 19:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think your changes are unnecessary and weaken the prose of an already weak article, but you'll notice that I'm not reverting you. This is not an issue worthy of retaining the Tag Of Shame on the article, though, because it's a relatively simple fix and one that nobody is bothering to dispute even if we don't all agree that it needs to happen. If you think the change needs to happen, it's on you to do it, but it doesn't make any sense to require the tag to remain because you're 'still finding' these words that you believe are WP:SAY violations. Find them and change them. If you haven't found any more to change, then the problem is fixed. If you have, why haven't you changed them yet? -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

An interesting example is Columbia Journalism Review which while it says "Yet many criticisms of press coverage by people who identify with Gamergate . . . have been debunked." http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/gamergate.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfhat (talk • contribs) 21:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC) sorry post this early what I was going to finish was that it still gave a roughly equal coverage of ethics and harassment. HalfHat 21:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Gawker's Massive COI in This

Since one of the goals of the revolt is to wipe Gawker off of the face of the earth, unless of course they actually deliver on their ethics promises, it would make sense that Gawker try to smear the GamerGate revolt. Since I know how much Wikipedia hates COI, per WP:COI, I do not think Gawker is a fair source for anything on this matter. Also seeing how Vox Media and possibly Ars Technica are on the hitlist, they would also benefit from smearing GamerGate. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 19:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that anyone who covers GG "gets targeted", such a proposal would kind of leave us with clickhole. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference, though: Gawker was targeted before it commented on GG (likely because of the issues with Grayson et al, combined with its pre-existing mutual hostility with Reddit); it's central to the controversy. More mainstream (and reliable) sites weren't targeted until after they commented, so they're fair game. (I don't know about Vox or Ars Technica, though.) Random the Scrambled ^(?) 23:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

As with all sources, the question is more to do with how they are used - I'm not inclined to remove Gawker from the equation completely. What uses of Gawker in the current article do you feel are a problem? If we look at the individual uses we should be able to get an idea of their reliablity. - Bilby (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

If anything, Gawker sites that are clear opinion pieces after they were knowingly targeted by GG should be avoided due to the clear bias, unless they are specifically commenting on the actions of GG against them. Like, a general opinionated update by Kotaku about GG overall should be avoided, while if they are factually covering a new bit of news in the issue, then that's likely okay (but we should seek more reliable sources not as involved if possible). --MASEM (t) 07:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Masem. Bilby: references 11(a) and 103(a) are good examples of what I'm worried about. (The latter may be salvageable, but it's worked in poorly at the moment.) Random the Scrambled ^(?) 07:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

How about somebody make a list of every reference in the article at present which cites Gawker followed by the linked statements?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I gave it a shot here. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 04:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope. The citations you've collected are all perfectly fine. We are not going to remove the well-sourced and indisputable discussion of the fact that the claims about Zoe Quinn are false merely because GamerGate disagrees with Kotaku. If you want us to rack up half a dozen more citations on that, we can. But we're not going to remove the Kotaku post refuting the charges, and it's not an opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to. Other sources already cover that. But to quote Gawker sources extensively for claims about themselves and state it as fact in Wikipedia voice is not acceptable. They are WP:PRIMARY sources in this. Tutelary (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

No, they aren't. As has been repeated here 18 million times, you don't get to convert well-established reliable sources into non-reliable sources just because your movement opposes them. There's been no demonstrated reason why these sources would magically become unreliable except WP:IDONTLIKEIT writ large. We get that GamerGate hates Gawker. Guess what? That has precisely nothing to do with how Wikipedia judges reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

North, you really trying to say that because I don't believe Gawker commenting on themselves should be in the article I am in this 'movement'. Next you'll say that if I edit the Republican page to remove some blog sourced trivia criticizing them I'm a 'Hardcore Conservative'. Stop with labels. Anywho, I'm not in my right mind but in any case, I don't see much problem as long as they're not commenting on themselves--Mainly on the Zoe Quinn stuff which is in their ballpark and if came to, would probably be substantiated by other sources in any case. That's what they're seeming to do according to Mr. Random's particular source collection and take on it. Tutelary (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a strawman, North - please stop using it. The issue is not that GamerGate opposes them. The issue is that GamerGate opposed them specifically (accusing them of rampant "agenda-pushing" and failure to address or identify conflicts of interest in their writing), before Gawker ever acknowledged them, let alone published these articles. Thus, at the time of writing those articles, it was in Gawker's best interest to denounce GamerGate. This is not the case for the more mainstream sources - no, not even the ones that GamerGate opposes now, because the sources denounced them - so they're fine. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 05:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you understand, Mr. Random. Reliable sources don't become unreliable merely because someone or some group makes wholly-unfounded accusations against them. Yes, that's what they are — unfounded, nonsensical conspiracy-theory accusations. Not a single reliable source gives a shred of credence to any allegation against Quinn and Grayson.

I'm sure lots of 9/11 truthers believe the mainstream media is attempting to silence their viewpoint and cover up George W. Bush's conspiracy with Bill Clinton and the Saudi Royal Family to false-flag a terrorist attack, and I'm sure they have accused lots of media sources of being corporate shills for this conspiracy. That doesn't make any of the mainstream reliable sources refuting their claims unreliable for Wikipedia purposes. And if you don't like my comparison here, that's just too bad — GamerGate is built around a similarly-fringe set of conspiracy theories with a similar amount of credence in mainstream reliable sources, which is to say virtually none. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The accusations do make it a primary source. Refer to Tutelary's comment above. Also, the mainstream media in that case had nowhere near the incentive to refute the claims as Gawker does here - the article itself mentions that Gawker Media could be financially harmed by all this, whereas mainstream media can take a little flak from run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorists. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 05:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate has attempted to financially harm several different media sites, including Gamasutra, Polygon and Rock Paper Shotgun. That does not make any of those sources unreliable or unusable. Unilateral accusations and attacks do not constitute evidence, much less proof, that a source is unreliable. As is trivial to source, the charges laid by some GamerGate supporters against Kotaku have been examined, discredited and rejected by other mainstream reliable sources. That GamerGate continues to cling to these claims like a life ring in a hurricane long after everyone else has moved on does not permit its supporters to make hay with them on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop using strawmen. The disproving of GamerGate's claims has nothing to do with this, nor does Gawker's general reliability. And if those other media sites were attacked before commenting on GamerGate, and if it posed a real risk to them in any way, then they must be used with similar caution. GamerGate's claims and actions do not capture the problem - the problem is that they were taken seriously by enough people for long enough to give Gawker reason for concern for its reputation and/or profits, especially when Intel, Adobe, etc. got involved. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 06:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

as the backdoor game to get the article to not state that the allegations against Quinn are false because Gawker is "not reliable" is not gonna work. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

its no "strawman" - When the issue is claims of "conflict of interest" and the claims of conflicts of interest have been shown false, then the "conflict of interest" claim is meaningless. "AXIOM: We cannot use Blue sources. GG: Suzie is Blue so we cannot use her. EVERYONE ELSE: Suzie is not blue. GG: You still cannot use Suzie because we claim she is blue." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The conflict of interest GG claims exists is not the issue. The issue is that the claim was made in the first place, and Gawker was threatened by it, regardless of whether GG was right or wrong. It's more like this: "AXIOM: We cannot use Blue sources. GG: Suzie is Blue, and we're going to tell everyone so people stop taking her seriously. SUZIE: I am not Blue. OTHER SOURCE: These accusations that Suzie is Blue could pose a real financial risk to her. ME: Then we cannot use Suzie's claims about them as factual sources, whether she's actually Blue or not." Random the Scrambled ^(?) 20:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

No other sources treat GG's allegations about Gawker as meaningful or well-founded. In fact, they widely treat the allegations as total nonsense. This means that GG's allegations are fringe theories which we give no credence whatsoever. GG's complaints are on the same level as 9/11 conspiracy theorists' claims that media were bought and paid for by George W. Bush and the Bilderbergs to cover up a false flag attack. We do not omit media sources from 9/11 Truth movement that truthers believe are "biased" against them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That is not the point. GG could be claiming that Gawker's writers eat babies, or that one of their writers stole candy from one. The material of the claim has nothing to do with it. What matters is that GG said something negative about Gawker and started rallying people and corporations (e.g. Intel, Adobe) behind them, to the point where Gawker had a financial interest in portraying them as raging misogynists (and even said up-front that this interest exists, as stated in this article). This is not the case for 9/11 truthers because they never did anything that could make even a small dent in the profits of the media that dismiss them as conspiracy theorists. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 21:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

So should we infer that anything published by Gawker prior to them having an alleged financial interest would be fine? CIreland (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Assuming Gawker is a reliable source (WP lists them as one), yes. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 03:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Going back to the page, it seems I didn't explain adequately - if I properly recall, other sources disproving the allegations are already present in the article, and should be used instead of the ones that are there now. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 06:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, we can add more. We're not removing the original Kotaku source, though. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there's so much opposition to what Mr Random is doing. Most of the stuff he asks to be removed already has other references anyway. All we are doing is preventing potential COI. starship.paint ~ regal 07:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the allegation that they slept together now established as true? Why do we say they are false? There are false allegations but there are true ones as well. As I recall that was not magically revealed but came out as an announcement after blog/manisfesto on Quinn. That allegation being true changed the ethics requirements of disclosure I believe. If this had been a financial reporter that was found to own stocks in companies they didn't cover (or bought stocks after they covered them), it's generally a firing offense. --DHeyward (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The allegation is that their relationship led to the coverage, which is false because the relationship started after the coverage. Prior to that, she was a source. Woodroar (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

And there wasn't even any meaningful coverage to begin with — the sum total of what Nathan Grayson wrote about Depression Quest on Kotaku were the words "Depression Quest." Three months earlier, at RPS, he wrote a whole phrase about it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly this essay seems to agree with OP, I'm not sure how widely accepted t's guidance is though. HalfHat 14:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Article about Gamergate and the Digital Games Research Association

Would this be suitable for new section under "GamerGate movement'?

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/11/11/gamergate-supporters-attack-digital-games-research-association

The above also has quotes from DIGRA's president.

How would you gauge the reliability of this source?

https://www.insidehighered.com/content/about-us

https://www.insidehighered.com/about_us/who Sookenon (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Inside Higher Ed's a pretty good source, and this is a pretty good article to discuss how loopy GamerGate's conspiracy-theory claims are. I think there are some people within Gamergate who are honestly interested in gaming journalism, but among the people who are really suspicious of DiGRA, there is a large group that are very anti-feminist. Some of them are probably misogynist. They’re afraid that for some reason feminists are going to come in and change their game. ... I don’t know that I can blame them, but they have no real knowledge of how academia works, how research works, how things get published, how colleagues in academia relate to each other, know each other and cite each other. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I was adding the start of that section before this was added, but yeah. There's one GGer quote in there that believe spoke for itself. Also, unrelated to this immediately, but one additional aspect is that this article says we're going to have journal articles coming down the pipes which (assuming peer-reviewed) are going to be good sources. --MASEM (t) 00:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where you get the stuff about journal articles being worked on, but at any rate I am not sure why this one source is enough to justify a lengthy section. This may indeed warrant a sentence or two since it pertains to the "Gamers Are Dead" article, but I think what is presently included is excessive. Certainly, calling the criticism "anti-feminist" in the heading on the basis of what the DiGRA president says is not exactly appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it's based on what the movement itself says, and the fact that a self-described anti-feminist video blogger is leading the charge. As the movement evolves, some Gamergate supporters have pledged to scrutinize research produced by DiGRA’s members for proof that the association has been taken over by feminists. ... "I’d like to show you how the Digital Games Research Association became co-opted by feminists to become a think tank by which gender ideologues can disseminate their ideology to the gaming press and ultimately to gamers." That's, by definition, anti-feminist. You can't be explicitly opposing a group because they're "feminists" and then complain when you're described as anti-feminist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And as I've been tracking the GG threads, DiGRA was the next major campaign for the last month-ism similar to the previous Operations (it even has an internal name but I can't recall it ATM and not given in that source). --MASEM (t) 02:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

On further articles: At least one paper written about Gamergate is already undergoing the peer review process, Consalvo said. Once the controversy dies down, she said, she expects many more will follow.. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Some Gaters have given this a name: DiggingDiGRA. This name isn't cited by any reliable sources that I've seen, though.

It's interesting to see what happens when specialist press reports on this stuff. There will be more as Gaters seek to reconcile their core dogma with the real world. In time it could become a significant part of our coverage. I can only imagine the papers this will fuel, as studying gamer culture is well within their academic scope. --TS 05:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

More Obvious Bias

Under "Political Views" or whatever (the absolute shit quality of it makes me forget section titles like that), there is only one sentence regarding the charities. It should be expanded on. --DSA510 Pls No H8 05:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to be WP:BOLD and expand it based on reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that even the current sentence is too much. One donation made by a few random people who use the hashtag is not, itself, a political view; the editors who want it included in the article seem to be trying to make the argument that this has implications for the political views of Gamergate as a whole (arguing, in other words, that because certain people who also use the GamerGate hashtag have donated money to a particular business, this means that we can conclude things about Gamergate as a whole), but that argument is WP:OR -- covering that in such a context requires reliable sources not just stating that it happened, but that it is significant. We don't note, for example, every political or personal donation made by other individuals or groups -- they're only worth covering once a reliable source has made an issue of them in some way. Otherwise, mentioning donations in an article to imply things like "he can't always be a bad person, he donated money to XYZ" or "he is clearly affiliated with this political movement, he donated money to them!" is original research, because it's an editor trying to force readers to draw specific conclusions rather than relying on reliable sources for interpretation. This is particularly true for Gamergate (which is diffuse and therefore hard to characterize) and for, if I recall the story correctly, these particular donations, which were made to someone who had constantly had a dispute with one of Gamergate's primary targets. Some editors might want to say that the donations show the milk of human kindness, or that it was just another form of harassment, or that it was purely a cynical ploy to deflect criticism; but any of these statements would have to be cited to a reliable source indicating the relevance of the event in that context. Without such a source, again, my feeling is that they can't be included because we have no citations for how, exactly, they're relevant to the discussion. Remember that the article is already massively-long -- it cannot hope to cover every particular thing that anyone claiming to be a part of Gamergate has done over the past few months. So any such inclusion needs sources indicating not just that they happened, but that it is relevant to the overarching coverage of the controversy. --Aquillion (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Willhesucceed (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thousands of pounds have been donated in the name of GG, so it's more than a few, at the very most though I think it should probably a short paragraph. Preferably shorter, it could probably be better placed in another section, I think it used to be in TFYC section. HalfHat 11:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that there are tens of thousands using the gamergate hashtag, and one of the sources indicating that a single donor gave several thousand dollars, thats much less than a pound a person. they really put their money where their mouth is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Those sources aren't useful, because they only state, effectively, 'some people who say they identify with GamerGate have given some money to other people'. They don't actually assert relevance, and therefore can't be given any particular weight over the thousands of other things that have happened over the course of this controversy. Conversely, there are countless reliable sources asserting in detail that harassment is core to what Gamergate is; that's the sort of sources that are needed to give this more than a sentence of attention at best. "A few people using the GG tag did something, which we will drop here without context for users to draw their own conclusion" is not encyclopedic writing; "here are a large number of reliable sources discussing what Gamergate is and what its defining elements are" is encyclopedic writing. This is especially true because the article is far too long and therefore cannot possibly cover every single operation, post, or action that people claim to have accomplished in Gamergate's name -- we need to focus on overarching core coverage produced by reliable sources, and avoid trying to cobble together our own original-research narratives out of disparate events like the donations referenced above. Obviously some editors here feel strongly that these (comparatively tiny) thousands of pounds of donations offer some deep insight into Gamergate, or are representative of it or otherwise would improve our article if we gave it more coverage; but I don't think that there's reliable sources backing that assertion up, so I think it's fair to dismiss it as generally not-very-relevant. --Aquillion (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The "charity work" of a particular person or persons is not relevant to the topic of the article. Please keep in mind that this article is not about Gamergaters themselves, nor about their beliefs or their movement or whatever one wishes to call it. It is about the controversy generated by people who harassed (and continue to do so) Quinn, Wu, and others under the #Gamergate hashtag. Tarc (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Since they donated under the hashtag, more clearly than many of the threats, that argument would apply just as much to the harassment. It also did garner a decent ammount of attention, with accusations of weaponizing charity. HalfHat 13:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, irrelevant. This is not an article about Gamergaters, this is an article about Gamergater-fueled controversy, time to accept that and move on. Tarc (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This just looks like POV pushing. It is part of a controversy, there were accusations of weaponizing charity. HalfHat 13:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

My admittedly-brief search doesn't find a single reliable source which even mentions the phrase "weaponizing charity." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought it had, maybe it hadn't, it was hot topic for a bit. I'll have a look, but I don't think that phrase itself was used. HalfHat 16:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove Gawker as it is "proudly a tabloid"?

A few sections above editors were talking about replacing low quality sources due to the controversial nature of the article. Therefore I propose removing Gawker from any section which is not about Operation Baby Seal. Why? Because it's "proudly a tabloid", as admitted by this Gawker article, article is recent, from September 2014. Gawker reporter writes that Like Gawker, TMZ is proudly a tabloid, so it’s not worth judging the site by the same standards of mainstream outlets. The article talks about how TMZ edited raw footage to "amplify its visual impact", and the writer says "I don’t think TMZ did anything wrong here". They've essentially sold themselves down from being a reliable source. The only thing that would be removed would be a single sentence in Political views... Gawker's Sam Biddle also raised the issue of the right-wing external forces "exploiting" Gamergate, noting the presence of Sommers, Yiannopoulos, Adam Baldwin, and others who have had nothing to do with video games prior and have only joined Gamergate to be anti-progressive. starship.paint ~ regal 05:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It is an op/ed piece by Sam Biddle after he made the tweets that led to "Operation Baby Seal". You cannot pick some single statement from some random article on the website to completely discount it as a source as the whole.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ah. Even worse, it's an op/ed piece from a tabloid site. By the way, Gawker's tabloid status was noted by the Columbia Journalism Review at this link. Also, a cursory search brought up Gawker celebrating a "Sensational Tabloid Journalist"
• Either that Gawker reporter was telling the truth about Gawker being a tabloid, or not. If not, then there's obviously a lack of editorial oversight for that article to be published, which also points to a lack of reliability. starship.paint ~ regal 06:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

biddle is not the only one who has made the analysis that the right wing talking heads for gamergate are not in it for the "but ethics" or the love of games , rather just the chance to bash feminists for a new audience. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That's great. Then use the other sources. No need for Biddle. starship.paint ~ regal 07:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Biddle's opinion after being made into a reason for GamerGate to continue is arguably notable as is his analysis that Yiannopoulos, Sommers, et al. are not in it for ethics in video game journalism.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you clarify? I don't really understand. I'm not fine with Biddle's opinion preceding the Operation Baby Seal section. IMO, it's either delete or perhaps we could move it to the Gawker Media section. starship.paint ~ regal 07:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The placement of his piece in this article as outside of his presence as a target should not mean anything. The piece was written after he tweeted and Gamergate started the "operation". Just because it has relevance to another part of the article should not in any way detract from his points.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, then I have clarified his notability in the controversy. starship.paint ~ regal 09:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't entirely necessary when we can just link to the section on the article to give more detail, which I've changed it to. We don't need to constantly bring up his "Bring back bullying" tweet as a reason of anything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to leave it except for a minor rephrase. I still oppose any future potential additions of Gawker beyond Baby Seal. starship.paint ~ regal 09:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

tag, again

My removal of the tag was reverted by User:Mr. Random with the following edit summaries:

" A case has been made that this article needs a tone rewrite, if nothing else. Possible sources to fix this have been ignored"

"misrepresentation of sources and lack of non-anti-GG sources are two separate issues. The former, per Masem, is why the notice stays"

"per Masem and the ANI page. None of the three conditions for removal is currently true"

I'm sorry, I'm new to this mess, so maybe I'm missing something. But I've been on Wikipedia for a very long time and this to me looks like a classic case of certain editors fighting to keep a tag on the article as a badge of shame (as the ANI page says) because they they don't like what the article says. In particular they don't like that the article is based on reliable sources and reflects what reliable sources say.

Specifically:

1. an article "need(ing) a tone rewrite" is NOT a reason to keep the tag on the article. And frankly, that sounds like some weasel bullshit obfuscation. "Oh, the article is POV! Why is it POV? Well... it's the tone!". Come on, you got to do better than that. Keeping the tag requires that the tag is substantiated and it is explained precisely how the article violates Wikipedia policies. From what I can see (I skipped some of the wall-of-text-rants) this hasn't been done.
2. "Possible sources... have been ignored" - I'm sorry, that doesn't make sense. What the hell are "possible sources"? If there are some "possible sources" out there being ignored, and you feel that they shouldn't be ignored, then for goodness sake, include them, don't spuriously tag the article. "Possible sources have been ignored" is just NOT a reason to include a NPOV tag in an article. *At best* it's a testament to someone's laziness, at words, weaselly excuse making.
3. "Misrepresentation of sources" - Ok, this one is actually substantial. If true. But I'm not seeing where this is explained. Which sources are being misrepresented? Where? How? Be specific. Just asserting that sources are being misrepresented doesn't make it so. An assertion is not an argument. Let's see the list. If no such list is forthcoming, the tag goes.
4. "per Masem" - first, this isn't an argument, unless Masem is some kind of authority here, whose views have been widely accepted by the general community, or at least on this talk page. This isn't the case. In fact, if one looks at the discussion right above, it's pretty clear that User:Masem has a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy, and in particular of what "neutrality" means. "Neutrality" does not mean "for every negative statement we must include a positive statement". It does not mean "we cannot include negative statements". It does not mean "we cannot include opinions (from reliable sources)". This is being pointed out to them. The fact that they - and apparently couple of others - fail to get it is not a reason to include the tag. Not understanding Wikipedia policy is not a reason to include the tag.
5. "per ANI page" - I have no idea how this makes sense. The discussion at ANI does not support including the article at all.

Either specific, detailed explanation is made of how the article violates WP:NPOV - as required - or the tag goes. Soon. Volunteer Marek  05:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Your "per Masem" is a gross, incorrect statement of what I am trying to argument for. Impartiality, not balance. Huge difference. --MASEM (t) 05:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

As to the points:

• #1 (and same as #4) - Several editors including myself believe this suffers from impartial tone, which is a WP:NPOV consideration. The first sentence is the primary point where this absolutely violated, as the harassment is a consequence of the controversy, but not the cause/reason (which, actually, is unknown or unclear). The rest are issues on phrasing and ordering that, presently, ridicule any point given by the GG side; while technically in line with policy as to not intend to give it the voice of WP at any single phrase, as a whole it is a problem. There's small bits of reordering that can be done to improve the language without changing the content or the ratio of sources. This also applies to the excessive use of antiGG pull quotes in full to keep hammering that the harassment and misogyny is bad, but without contributing to the factual substance of the article. It is not like the article has to be trashed, 95% of the content is good, but there just needs some rewrite, quote trimming, and reorganization to speak in a more impartial voice.
• #2 and #3 are non-starters; I prefer if we could even get away from weaker RSs to source most of this to high quality ones, but the sources that are claimed to be ignored or mis-represented are very weak or not even reliable to start. So yes, that's not an argument. #5 As the time I write this, the ANI discussion has no obvious consensus either way so that's also a non-starter. --MASEM (t) 06:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

As noted many times, you are not allowed to keep the tag in place as a warning to readers or a shame badge. Tag the article, make your concerns known on the talk page, and discussion ensues. You and your friends have failed to achieve consensus for your concerns, thus your proposal FAILS. Thirty-five days is more than a generous amount of time to grant for this sort of thing, and as people keep ignoring this, I'll use shouty-bold caps: REMOVAL OF THE TAG DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL DISCUSSION IS HALTED, it just means there is nothing dire that necessitates the solicitation of outside opinion. Moveon was initially created to prod Republicans to drop the Monica Lewinsky stick and...wait for it...move on. Tag proponents need something similar. Tarc (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that people have refused to partipate in consensus developing debates (the mediation request, and the two prior ArbCom ) on the basis of SPAs being the issue and not addressing concerns of established editors, there is no way to say that we can talk about "failure to get consensus". --MASEM (t) 14:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could drop all the "SPA" stuff, and judge arguments, not backgrounds. starship.paint ~ regal 14:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be nice if we could all just use this page to talk about rainbows and kittens. As it happens, though, the presence of SPAs is a serious problem here and we need to discuss it. In particular we're facing severe opposition to the implementation of Wikipedia's clear and longstanding policies, driven in part by SPAs. We cannot ignore that elephant, sorry. --TS 12:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

A random thought

Just considering some past discussions, I'm wondering if there are points that we all might be speaking past, on the core nature of what this article is, which in turn might reflect how to write this to address issues.

Imaging if there was no harassment at all involved in this: Gjoni posted his blog, the people that are GG accussed Quinn, and then went on to find other ethics concerns and did their advertiser campaigns. At the core, this is the controversy from the side of the GG, this is what their movement is (as they claim, as we can cite). In considering it as a controvery, it has the two sides and all normal facets one would expect: here is what one side that wants to see change wants (proGG) and here's the other side (gaming journalists and indie devs, or more specifically, those that push political views in games). I don't know if we'd have an article on it if it was just this, but I'm just setting up.

But what did happen is the addition of harassment and the like. Consider that this is another controversy separate from the above. This is the mainstream press criticizing the use of harassment that appears misogynic by those that claim they are part of the other controversy.

What the problem may have been is that by calling this as the "Gamergate controversy" is potentially misleading because it relates to the first one (the gamers vs gaming press), while another way the press have used it to describe there side. So we are starting for all readers (pro and antiGG alike) from a point that could be taken either way by title only.

There is no question that the bulk of sourcing is on the second controversy, the mainstream press vs the proGG side, because of the harassment. As such, I wonder if consider calling this "Gamergate movement controversy" to accurately reflect that this is primarily about the issues the harassment has called around the movement, more than anything else. What that would mean would be a bit of reorganization to frst explain what the GG movement is, their goals, and the critical responses to that are (probably a whole 4-5 paragraphs at most, we have most of the material already) and then going into the actual line of the events that are part of this larger controversy, which at the end of the day is primarily going to be the predominate mainstream critical assessment of the GG tactics and the bulk of the rest of the article. Calling it by the "Gamergate movement controversy" makes it 100% clear we're not covering the movement in detail but the issues that those using the "GG" banner have caused. Alternately, we could keep this as "Gamergate controversy" and make sure in the first sentence of the lead, to explain that the article is going to about the second controversy, and not the movement. Either way, I can see a path that keeps nearly all sources but makes it clear that WP's article is not about the movement but the actions they caused. I'm not 100% on this approach, but it was something that struck me when reading some of the replies overnight. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

per the AFD, this article is about the harassment. Gamers and forum trolls being upset about something is not itself notable because that is the usual state for those people. Artw (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Which is what I'm saying, which might make this easier to write to isolate the part about the movement's aspects and "their" controversy into a single section per FRINGE, and then go on about the harassment. The approach would make it clear that outside of that section, the rest is about the harassment events and media's reaction to it. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, I'll get back to you on this. HalfHat 16:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There isn't any "movement". That's a figment of people's imagination. RGloucester — ☎ 17:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

A quick Google search suggests otherwise. I agree with Masem. Reframing the discussion could be a helpful first step in addressing the structural problems of this article. Pollinosisss (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are reliable (high quality) RS that recognize that there is a movement, and if we follow that and treat that as a small FRINGE subsection where all their "ethics" items are described and leave the rest of the article about the harassment that has done in the name of the GG movement, then we can clear up a lot of the issues here. But we have to recognize that the press does recognize a movement. The problem right now is trying to group the concerns of the movement and the concerns of the press about harassment in the same subsections which the collision is causing much of the non-impartial language. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There are also high quality sources that say it is not really a movement, just a unorganized rabble under a hashtag, and purposefully so , so that there is no culpability for the harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

...which we can add to the larger part of the article that show the press questions if this really is a movement without leadership, or even using the ethics as a front for harassment. (It would be improper to call the GG a movement in the FRINGE area and then not include these complaints elsewhere). --MASEM (t) 20:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Why would we privilege the sources that see GG as a "movement" over those that say its just a ravaging horde via implementing a WP:STRUCTUREal bias? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, you are privileging the "some" sources that give credence to a "movement" that other equally reliable sources say is not a "movement" at all but merely a gaggle of hashtaggers whinging about this and that and the other thing and using it as cover for harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

We have high quality sources that are critical of GG, with some that acknowledge GG as a movement before speaking ill of it, and some that doubt or denounce that from the start. As such, two viewpoints with about the same weight and balance means we should present both points, and by presenting the movement as a FRINGE topic of the main controversy instead of trying to mix it into it will simplify the article's approach by making it clear it is about the harassment issues. --MASEM (t) 22:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

We have just as many high quality sources that dispute any claims that gamergate is an actual "movement". Privileging the structure of the article as if the "but ethics 'movement'" is the valid perspective is not WP:STRUCTURE appropriate and certainly not something we will do to try "appease" ranting tolls and satisfy their desire for attention and acknowledgment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The point of this approach is not to appease the proGG, but to be 100% clear that this article's main topic is the harasment of the actions under the GG movement and there is no NPOV issues in how we cover the harassment given the predominate sourcing in the press. In the current version of this article, by mixing the ethics concerns with the harassment, there are difficult NPOV/impartial issues that are entangled. Separate out and isolate the brief amount of ethics aspects we already have, and then there's a clear delination, and it will be much clearer that once we start getting into the harassment aspects, there is zero way we can give the GG aspects any positive aspects there given the overwhelming negative attention they have in the press when it comes to the harassments. This is an approach supported by NPOV and required by FRINGE, (given that the movement is a fringe view, to give it the weight that sources give little coverage of). --MASEM (t) 06:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It might be noted here that there are many controversies surrounding Gamergate, but Gamergate itself is not a controversy. The current title is misleading. Pollinosisss (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That's why thinking "Gamergate movement controversy" as a title might be better, as 1) it's not about the movement, and what would be about the movement would be its a short section to give just the only backgrround we can source) - as such, at least I think, that those proGGs that are asking about the POV of this article but recognize the issues with not being reported in reliable sources will recognize we can't do any more for them in coverage and thus cannot complain of POV of the article, and 2) separate out the two very different issues that are difficult to write in the same logical thought. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I think people are having trouble with the English language. The suffix -gate is attached to words to indicate a scandal or controversy. The addition of "controversy" is thus unnecessary, and only done to disambiguate from the type of ant. "Gamergate movement" doesn't make any sense. It means "Gamer scandal movement" or "Gamer controversy movement", which is a nonsense phrase. There is no "Gamer scandal movement". There is a scandal about harassment and misogyny in the video gaming sphere, hence "Gamer" and "-gate". This meaning trumped the original reference to the so-called "corruption" involving a one Ms Quinn. The suffix "-gate" indicates that scandal. Perhaps a so-called "movement" has arisen amidst the scandal, but that doesn't change the fact that the scandal itself is not about any kind of amorphous movement, but about the contemptible behaviour of certain people. RGloucester — ☎ 18:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree generally, but would caution against being so prescriptive. I don't think there's need to worry about the lexical precision of "Gamergate" (as movement or controversy) since that's basically the common term and what we're stuck with. However I don't object to anything else in the above. Protonk (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

What I've recognized when I came to this idea is that the people on the proGG side think that "Gamergate" is about them, and thus the fact we bury their ethics concerns (work with me on this) is why they come to this article to want change. The press treat "Gamergate" as the larger harassment issue. There's clearly a communication issue here that we really have two different things happening that are kludgy when trying to treat it as one. We don't necessary have to change the title to separate it, but the lead is going to have to be super clear. If we kept it as "Gamergate controversy", then the lead would likely need to come out as : "An ongoing controversy involving the actions of supporters of the hashtag #Gamergate broke out in the video game industry in August 2014. The #Gamergate supporters have claimed they seek to challenge issues of ethics in journalism within the video game industry. Simultaneous to this was a prolonged series of harassment and threats against several video game industry figures, primarily female, using the #gamergate hashtag. The harassment was condemned widely by international media, and condemned the actions as sexist and misogynistic, and questioned the true intent of the #gamergate movement." (I running that off the top of my head, so it absolutely needs wordsmithing) But putting it in that tone makes it 100% clear, this is going to be about how the press saw GG, and not about the GG movement. There would be no way that the POV (of trying to make this proGG) could be challenged in that manner. We'll have the small section on describing the GG movement with only criticism of their ethics complaints, but we'll get to lack of organization, the "but ethics!" aspects and the like later in the larger part of the article. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

So what you really wanted to do was muck about with the lede? Nope. Artw (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No, because there would be a more significant revision to the overall structure; the point of redoing the lead (and that's certainly not a perfect rewrite) is to make it 100% clear that the article is about the controversy around the harassment issues, and not about the proGG's controversy with the gaming press, so that if the proGG side continue to say "but this is baised!" we can say that their issues are the clear FRINGE point to the larger harassment ones, and dismiss those concerns by nature of the structure. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

On this page, there is no "proGG" or "antiGG". There are only Wikipedia editors, writing in the encyclopaedic voice. There is no "controversy with the gaming press" according to reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 21:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"Media: "We are ethical n' stuff XD"[1] Source: Said Media." --DSA510 Pls No H8 23:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It is silly to claim there are no sources to ascribe what the proGG wants, even if, as some sources believe, this is only pretense for something else - we have what the proGG has claimed to be already sourced in the article. We don't have to necessarily believe that the proGG's claims are true (the press by and large doesn't) but by making it a separate discussion as a small FRINGE section, we can easily separate out arguments that right now are mixed together and make it difficult to undue the two issues. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no controversy about "but ethics"- other than the fact that those claiming it as an issue apparently cannot identify actual "ethics issues" when it hits them on the head. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

If a side of an issue says they have a problem with X, and that source is claimed by a strong RS, then we can say that in the article; in this case, we have all the sources that make the necessary claims of the GG's issues with the press already in the article and would not have to scramble around for re. GG supporters say they have an issue with the gaming press (we can source that), and they have a few things like conflicts of interest (sourced) and "objective reviews" (sourced). However, everyone recognizes these as FRINGE view, so we have many more sources that counter the COI and the "objectives review" points, and we have numerous criticism about how the GG side has managed itself, it's lack of message or workable mess, and of course, the whole harassment side. This proposal is just to call out the little we can source about the GG movement in a small section as FRINGE to the main topic of the harassment which is what this article should be clearly about; this is avoid all the mingling of issues that give it the appearance of POV.

Let's consider this from the opposite side; hypothetically, consider if all the GG complaints about ethics were removed from this article, (excluding the press's "but ethics!" commentary and the like); what is left is really what this article needs to be about, and written to that point. However, as a note in the overall history, we should, per FRINGE, have a short section to explain where GG came about and their fringe viewpoint, and why it is a fringe viewpoint. Because we've made this hypothetical article clearly about the harassment, we have no "responsibility" to do any additional work to speak positively towards GG (until more sourcing to give them that comes about), as per NPOV. Meaning that the claims this is an NPOV article coming from SPAs can be nullified because the article is not about the GG movement itself, but about the harassment done in the name of the GG movement. It's a way to move forward on this article that I think would satisfy my issues with it. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No "ethics issues"? Our very own article would disagree "Hill instead wrote that AAA games publishers "coopted [games journalism] as a marketing arm" and said that many games journalists agree that those publishers hold too much power over the media." It is widely established that ethics issues exist within gaming journalism, and that has been a running joke since before Nintendo reviewed their own games in Nintendo Power. What people are arguing over is whether or not GGers are using the legitimate issues of game journalism ethics as a smokescreen for misogyny, which the overwhelming media supports, and not whether or not legitimate issues of game journalism ethics exist which the overwhelming media also supports.AioftheStorm (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly right. There is no "controversy over ethnics issues", because those issues are acknowledged universally. The controversy surrounds how these people used that widely-acknowledged problem as a front to spew hate. RGloucester — ☎ 00:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The concern that some claim to have with journalism ethics is a minor aspect of Gamergate. It is given adequate coverage in proportion to its minority point-of-view. Tarc (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I'm suggesting that we group all the existing parts that focus on the ethics arguments into a small section to isolate that from the larger, majority topic, and make it clear we are only giving the appropriate WEIGHTed coverage to the GG side, and then get into the larger criticism of their methods/approach. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You're willfully misquoting Hill's point, which is that Gamergate isn't talking about AAA game publishers at all, and therefore they cannot claim those legitimate issues as an issue of journalism ethics that they're discussing. Yes, there are issues of ethics in video games journalism. No, Gamergate is not doing anything meaningful to discuss or address them. Instead, they're talking about indie game developers' sex lives, sending death threats to a cultural critic and attacking an academic group for being taken over by "feminists" — none of those things have the least shred of connection to journalism ethics. The movement can't claim to be about something it demonstrably has no interest in. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

They can make the claims all they want. It's their PR that fails when their actions do not speak anywhere close to what their claims are; Scientology can claim it's a religion, but most people consider their actions fraudulent. We absolutely need to cover the mainstream perception that gamergate it not about ethics, but we also can report from sources that they claim are about ethics. --MASEM (t) 07:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

and we do state that they claim that. but there is no "controversy" over "but ethics" except on this page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Go back to my original thesis on this post: there is clearly the controversy about the use of harassment and other tactics by those claiming themselvs as GG supporters that is the focal point of this article, why this whole thing is notable, etc. Very little of this - save for the "but ethics!" charge - has anything to do directly with any claimed ethics charges that the GG side has stated they want (from our existing sources). To a proGGer's eyes, they think the "Gamergate controversy" is their ethics charges, and the stuff with harassment is not for various reasons, some which go further down the FRINGE route (this can be seen by reading the various boards). I think everyone on this talk page recognize that this view of what the "controversy" is cannot be the primary focus, and only qualifies as FRINGE. But to understand the main controversy over the harassment, we still need to lay out the FRINGE view of the GG supporters - as well as direct commentary and criticism of those concerns. We write the rest of the article to be 100% clear to a new reader that we aren't calling the "controversy" around what the GG's ethics concerns are (we won't even call that a controversy), but solely on the harassment. We make crystal clear that the primary topic of this article is the controversy over the harassment, delegating the little we can source about the ethics charges to a small section. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And again, we DO state that some of the GG hashtag posts are "but ethics" - but we CANNOT claim there is any "controversy" around the "but ethics" because their aint. And we dont give a damn that anyone may feel that our article is not advocating appropriately for their cause. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I am just misunderstanding what you are suggesting. Can you make a draft article that would show what you are actually proposing would look like? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll try - the suggestion here is not to boost the GG signal any more than we already have, but simply group their ethics claims and the counterpoints directly to those claims in one section, so that everything else in the article is focused on the harassment and dubious nature of the movement; the resulting articles, following the lead, would be Background (like it is), a brief summary of the moment and their claims, and then from then on out - the events around the harassment, the death of gamers/GG's email campaigns, and then criticism and analysis of the whole situation including the nature of sexism and misogyny and the criticism of the "but ethics!" aspects. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not to move the pages at this time; the proposed move has no chance of gaining consensus through the current discussion, WP:SNOW. Dekimasuよ! 19:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

---

• Gamergate controversy → Gamergate
• Gamergate → Gamergate (ant)

– The video game culture controversy, and not the ant, has become the primary topic for "Gamergate", by quite a large margin. That is, "it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is called "Gamergate controversy" because that is the focus and scope here; the controversy caused by people who initially harassed one woman, then others, under a common twitter hashtag. It wasn't named as such for the sole purpose of disambiguating it from an ant article. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose on grounds of long-term significance. This situation is only a few months old. Will anyone still care about it in a year? That remains to be seen. Somewhat premature, at least. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

A year from now, when you say "Gamergate", how many people will immediately think of the ant, assuming that you're not sitting in the department of invertebrate zoology of a college or museum? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL but I will bet dollars to donuts far more will think of the ants than than who will remember or think of "harassment of women" /"but ethics!". there is no evidence this trollfest based on nothing will have any lasting impact. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support, with apologies to the ants. Protonk (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit flummoxed by some of the opposition. There's vanishingly little doubt as to whether or not the bulk of sources (reliable or otherwise) mean the events covered in this article (and not the ant) when they say "Gamergate" or "#Gamergate". Disambiguating the ant from the controversy as we do right now may feel good, as we can say "we're not subject to recentism, the ant came first and all this will blow over", meanwhile a reader looking to learn about gamergate will either not find the article (because the title is different) or will find the ant first. No doubt this hypothetical reader will praise us for our commitment to lexical precision and not feel grumpy or put out that they didn't get the article they wanted. Protonk (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• There is a hatnote on the other article that directs those looking for Gamergate controversy to this article. Dekimasuよ! 19:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, thanks. I'm aware of that. But now we're two clicks to the article itself (provided we use wikipedia's search). If we use google, searching for "gamergate" brings this article up first regardless (the ant is nowhere to be found). Protonk (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Egsan Bacon, and we also have a precedence of the ant article being on Wikipedia first, and being a topic before this controversy came about. Gamergate controversy accurately describes this current article. On the crystal ball comment, scientific information tends to have a bit more staying power, while controversies like this often get blown up early on only to later become just a tiny blip on the radar in terms of encyclopedic content. Also, this is currently a hot button issue amongst editors as evidenced by edits here. I'm a bit concerned about editors who are passionate about this topic bringing that into discussion on a completely unrelated topic and trying to weight which one should get precedence. Best to close this and let the dust settle first to avoid WP:RECENTISM issues. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Echoing the comments of Egsan Bacon and Kingofaces43. — Strongjam (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per the AFD and GamerGate's lack of notability outside of controversy. Artw (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Gamergate controversy is fine. Kaciemonster (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The scientific term will have indefinite value; GG as the controversy will likely remain a bad memory of the gaming industry once it's over. Just because now "Gamergate" may be more reflective of the controversy, we consider the long-term aspects. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Recentism makes us all think of this as a major topic, but back in reality the article currently called Gamergate is of great significance, being a link target for about a score of articles about ants. Search engines are still perfectly capable of suggesting appropriate choices and the name "Gamergate controversy" is more descriptive. Moreover, like many "-gates" the original claim of some sort of scandal and cover up has evaporated in the light of day, so calling it merely "Gamergate" without a qualifier might not be the best move even if we didn't already have a perfectly good entomology article of that name. --TS 15:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• oppose- the "controversy" has received coverage and notice, not the "movement" /clusterfuck. In 3 months when there is even more evidence that this was just a trollfest, it will fade from view and relevance other than the dingiest corners of 8chan . The ants will still be around. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Because opinion!=fact --DSA510 Pls No H8 19:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The references

Can we {{hat}} the reference list? I know it's unconventional but until the article gets pruned it will make navigation easier. Or will that break wikipedia? Retartist (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

MOS issue. Can't hide it w/o printing problems. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there anyway we could place a sort of warning or notice?

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.

---

A lot of information in this article is biased and much of it is very opinionated. Rather than continuously argue about who's right and who's wrong, is there anyway we could place a sort of warning to alert readers that these events are ongoing and that a definite conclusion hasn't been reached, and that the contents of this article are highly susceptible to change? It's apparent to me that the information being provided is too subjective and the premature conclusions one draws from reading the article do not adequately cover both sides of the story. Even if one side is misogynistic or the other side is devoid of ethics, both need to be given fair treatment despite how the other side feels. --Digman14 (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

We already have one: the "neutrality is disputed" message at the top. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 04:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The notice that is on there at the moment is intended to highlight immediate and serious concerns with an article, that the tagger is then expected to raise on the talk page. It is not meant to be used as it currently is being used, as a sort of Scarlet Letter to express a minor it point-of-view. Almost 2 weeks ago I noted this, and stated that the tag would be removed on the 6th. That has no passed, and I will give it until tomorrow, then it comes off and it will stay off. The majority of reliable sources at present show "Gamergate" as a controversy about harassment of women in the gaming industry, with a counter-argument of "it's about ethics" to be a secondary and minor point-of-view. Several editors have presented arguments to reverse that, but they have failed to achieve consensus. Tarc (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No it wont, if you take it off, i will put it back in again. Because you DO NOT DECIDE that. --Torga (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors, especially ones not here for a valid purpose, will not be allowed to misuse project tags to advance their point-of-view agendas. As I noted above, the tag is used to draw attention to an immediate concern, bring it to the talk page, where the matter is resolved. The article cannot be moved away form its current focus on misogyny and harassment, as that is based on solid reliable sourcing as this project requires. Those who have tried have had over a month now to make their case, but have failed to achieve consensus. 1 month is far, far, far more time than is generally allowed. Tarc (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the bullying tactic where you guys go ahead and do whaterver you want, and then when people changes it, you say that they need concensus and discussion is not working anymore. The biased sticker will stay. --Torga (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

What is a "bias tag"? Artw (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• The tag should stay until there is consensus that the article is neutral. I very much doubt that there is such a consensus. Sure, the reliable sources depict a lot on harassment. But the key question is, does the article reflect the sources in a neutral manner? starship.paint ~ regal 05:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mr. Random: What exactly are you looking for? "We took gamergate to the lab and under the electron microscope we determined that gamergate has a rating of 127 on the Lepine Misogyny Scale and a PR Success value of -3 Drapers" Of course an article about a hashtag is going to consist of analysis and commentary. And per WP:NPOV#UNDUE the analysis and commentary will be reflective of what the reliable sources say about the subject. Which bundle of reliable sources is lacking or misrepresented in the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No we should never endorse opinion no matter how popular. "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." HalfHat 12:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Where specifically are there "endorsements" or these "tone" issues? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

NPOV tag removal, Nov 10th, late

Just so it is a bit more prominent, but not really worth of its own heading, since it was touched on above...

Per my comments a few weeks ago, it has now been five weeks since this article was tagged for NPOV concerns. User have had thirty-five days to raise their concerns above neutrality, and while things may not have resolved to their liking, this project operates on consensus, and one was not reached that these concerns have merit. If anything, there is consensus that the article as it stands and the direction it goes is a neutral reflection of what reliable sources say on the topic. I'm sorry, but the sources do not support the contention that Gamergate is a controversy of ethics in gaming journalism

The NPOV tag is not a raised fist of protest, nor is it a Scarlet Letter. It has had 5 weeks, and now it is time to go. Unless someone does so beforehand (as I am heading to bed) I will be removing it in ~12 hours, and if editors unwisely choose to edit-war over the matter, we will go to WP:ANI, where I'm fairly confident that the protests of "I disagree!" and "It's biased!" will have many sympathetic ears. The single-purpose accounts should be especially wary here. Tarc (talk) 05:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC) −

• Nope - what's the point of this ultimatum ... do you have consensus that the article is neutral? There is a significant number of editors who believed that the article is not neutral. See Talk:Gamergate controversy/RFC1#Q2: Is the current Gamergate article too biased in this manner?. starship.paint ~ regal 05:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• NoIt is biased and the tag should stand. There is clearly no concensus to remove it--Torga (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Re. removal of NPOV tag. The neutrality issue hasn't been resolved. I've been watching the TALK page the last 5 weeks and there has been no progress. There are two editors who have set the tone of the article. There are two others who protest the neutrality of the article. The tone of the talk page is adversarial and sufficiently hostile that other people are loath to be involved. There has been no progress. The NPOV should not be removed. The first sentence makes a judgement of one group in the controversy rather than providing an impartial introduction to the participants of the controversy. The remainder of the article is similarly written. The article is unreadable to the casual reader. IMO the article appears so biased that the casual reader will ignore it. This does not benefit anyone, and it doesn't benefit those editors who are being accused of bias. Jgm74 (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• No, per Starship and Jgm74's remarks about the dispute. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 06:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• How about no per starship, there is an ongoing dispute, IT STAYS Retartist (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  This "dispute" has been going on for a month.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• No. I'm still finding multiple violations of WP:Say, the intro is also very questionable.HalfHat 08:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Nope consensus hasn't been reached jet per Starship.paint, the intro still has to be worked on. Avono (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not a vote. The tag is not to be used as a "scarlet letter." It's been some time since a credible case could be made that the article doesn't substantially reflect the consensus of reliable sources. It's long past time the tag came off. --TS 12:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Per the tag's instructions ["The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor."] Given that not one of the !votes above has articulated an actionable issue, and it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag should go. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  Well I went ahead and removed the tag with an edit summary explaining why. It's back. What next? Don't we have discretionary sanctions to deal with this kind of SPA-related problem? --TS 12:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well done. You have ignored an entire RFC on concerns about the neutrality of the article. Talk:Gamergate controversy/RFC1. I do acknowledge the majority of reliable sources do depict harassment, etc. But, to quote Masem, we are instead giving the antiGG side far too much coverage, to the point of being preachy on how "right" the antiGG side is, and how bad the proGG side is. This is evidenced by certain phrasing, excessive use of the negative words "harassment" and "misogyny" (and forms thereof), and overuse of near-full quotes from antiGG sources when they are not needed for explaining the key parts of the narrative. That is the specific neutrality problem in the article. starship.paint ~ regal 13:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The RFC, though correct in form, is clearly an inexpert attempt to perform an end run around policy. The first question, "Can an article become too biased in the favor of the side with the plurality of sources?" has a clear answer in Wikipedia policy: no. This is not the wiki you are looking for. --TS 13:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem to think that your "no" answer is fact, but it is instead an opinion. Many other editors answered "yes" in the RFC. Plainly put, you're not the boss. starship.paint ~ regal 13:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a fact that follows from our policy. The overwhelming consensus of reliable sources is that Gamergate is a misogynistic harassment campaign, and so that's what we have to write about. We're not about to relax NPOV just because some editors disagree with it. --TS 13:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The overwhelming consensus of reliable sources (which so far happens to be the media) is that Gamergate is a misogynistic harassment campaign. I don't deny this. The problem is not the sources. The problem is how the article is using the sources. Please read the green words above, by Masem. starship.paint ~ regal 13:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, NPOV tag requires "The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." Your assessment "The problem is how the article is using the sources. " Is neither specific nor actionable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Note; this wasn't a vote, this was posted to be informative. 3 hours to go, and as I said last night, I'd advise careful thought before making a stand on this. Already, editors with no part in this topic area at all easily recognize this as an abuse of project tagging and have attempted removal. Tarc (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Editors here saying 'no' need to do stop re-instate the tag with vague reasoning. Specific and actionable reasons are needed to be helpful. — Strongjam (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• No, as per Jgm74. The tone of the article and talk page is adversarial and sufficiently hostile to repel both reader and editor alike from this article. It is also astonishingly that WP:BLPSTYLE is being so thoroughly ignored in every aspect. What reader would describe this article as written in a dispassionate tone, in a non-partisan manner, and that it is avoiding both understatements and overstatements? Criticism and praise is not added conservatively, or written in a disinterested tone, and that is the main reason why the NPOV tag should stay up until resolved. Belorn (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Lolno Per WP:NPOV --DSA510 Pls No Hate 17:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Remove: There is no remaining NPOV issue, merely a vocal group of POV pushers, openly collaborating a campaign on 8chan to make this page more favorable to GamerGate. AN/I is going to be needed. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not pushing a POV, as this is going to be weighing on the antiGG side, but there is a huge impartialness problem with this article that falls under NPOV as well that I'm arguing for, and the NPOV Tag has to stay until that is addressed. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, but you have to allow for the possibility that your opinion on what is or is not NPOV may not carry the day. The tag doesn't remain until you are personally satisfied with a result. Tarc (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
      • If it was clear I was the only person fighting for it, yeah, that's TE, I'd not fight its removal. But it's clear (even discounting SPAs) that there's issues with the NPOV-ness, and any attempt to discuss with via consensus building is shot down immediately. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Remove: Tarc is right in saying that saying "actually, it's about ethics in gaming journalism" a thousand times doesn't make it any more true. The idea that it's about ethics in gaming journalism simply isn't bourne out by the sources. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep tag until the situation is resolved. SPAs or not, clearly a number of established editors are seeing a problem, and the discussion on this page proves it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  quite clearly, per the tag instructions, someone claiming to see an issue is not a valid criteria. they must be able to articulate a specific instance of NPOV issues, where the content does not appropriately reflect the sources available. there is not an option "if enough people are vaguely whinging , they must be appeased by hanging the NPOV as a 'warning'." (in fact the instructions say quite the opposite.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Reading the article and the talk pages, I see the problem. This isn't vague whining, it's a problem of the sources, of the tone, of the point of view of the article. When that's sorted, I agree the tag should be removed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Just looking at the first source, it seems clear to me that Gamergate refers to both the original GamerGate movement - which was based on ethical concerns, however misguided or unsubstantiated those concerns might be - and the subsequent backlash prompted by the harassment and perceived sexism. So to begin the article by saying "The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 and concerns misogyny and harassment in video game culture" is to take a point of view that the former usage of the term is not worthy of coverage. I do think the article has gotten a lot more NPOV recently, but I think it still has a way to go, so Keep the tag for now. Λυδαcιτγ 14:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy

ANI filing

Well, if I were to draw a football analogy, I'd say I was just tripped by some grudge-bearers, so someone else is going to have to scoop up the ball and run with it, if you want this article to be less Hester Prynne-ish. Tarc (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Per the discussion there, I have closed this thread as well. [36]

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.

commentary about locking and blocking

Admins should just be blocking anyone involved in edit warring instead of just protecting the article. The article has been fully protected for 10 days because of an edit war over a NPOV tag, it's pathetic. - hahnchen 22:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It had to be protected because people wouldn't accept that a consensus formed against them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll assume for a sec, Ryulong, that you're entirely right. Where was this consensus determined and how exactly how was it determined? Tutelary (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The ANI thread where at least four separate uninvolved editors agreed with Tarc's summation of the events and removed the tag from this page amongst the other editors who have had zero participation in this article seeing the same thing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

here [37] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No no, I see that, but are you aware of how consensus was determined in that heated, large discussion? Or how it was gauged at all? Tutelary (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

i am not a mind reader, but one would guess the closer compared the weight of the arguments based on policies. there is however, no reason to re-re-hash it on this page as nothing will come from yet another side bar off topic discussion in an inappropriate forum. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Getting very off topic and rehashing finished (?) business. Isn't the tag being discussed elsewhere on the page? If so, can we please keep it confined? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Australian TV news report

This report from ABC (transcript) includes footage and Vox Pops that were probably filmed at PAX Australia in Melbourne the weekend before last. It gives a clear account of the widespread fear produced by Gamergate, and includes commentary by notable gaming personalities including Stephanie Bendixsen of the Australian gaming TV programme Good Game, developer Brianna Wu, and Rebecca Fernandez of the IGDA.

It may be useful as a source for some of the abuse and death threats, as well as giving an Australian perspective. --TS 22:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Australian perspective? Doesn't seem like a national issue. HalfHat 23:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The international dimension is why non-US sources should be considered for inclusion. --TS 23:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems largely the same, it probably better to focus just on the quality. HalfHat 00:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice

Please be aware that a sanctions enforcement page has been established at WP:GS/GG/E. This page can be used to request enforcement of sanctions against an editor or for some other administrative action. Please follow the appropriate guidelines when making a report. Administrators will be watching the page, ready to respond to your requests. RGloucester — ☎ 21:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

My comment got moved, but let me be clear, admins should be blocking edit warriors rather than locking the article. - hahnchen 00:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Hahnchen: If you want someone to be sanctioned, make a request at the page I linked above and provide evidence. RGloucester — ☎ 01:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: - If an admin sees an edit war on this page, why does it require a report? - hahnchen 01:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What Is Gamergate? What Is Gamergate Controversy?

After some reading and analysis, it occurs to me that part of the problem with this article is (as mentioned above) that Gamergate has multiple meanings. It is said that the Gamergate controversy is a controversy about the video game culture, involving misogyny, harassment, and sometimes even threats, and that is true, but there are really two controversies masquerading as one, because one side in each of the two controversies uses the hashtag #Gamergate. The first controversy (the misogyny and harassment) is well-documented. The second controversy, which is not really related, is about journalistic ethics. This controversy is not as well documented as the first, and consists largely of tweets and other posts by individuals. That is, there is no direct relationship between those who defend the traditional video game culture against claims of misogyny and harassment, and those who argue that there are issues about journalistic ethics. On the one hand, reliable sources give much more weight to the harassment controversy than to the ethics controversy, and to give the two equal weight would be false balance. On the other hand, reliable sources do document that there is a population of gamers using the Gamergate hashtag who argue that there is an issue of journalistic ethics, and so that issue cannot be ignored.

The complication is that there are two controversies, one of which is mainstream and one of which is largely fringe, with the same name. It is as if the same word referred to both astronomy and astrology, both of which must be described, and we couldn't disambiguate them.

Is there any way that we can describe the two controversies, one of which is taken by mainstream reliable sources to be a real problem, and one of which appears to be that of a population of individual posters, while preserving Wikipedia policies? (Can this issue, of how to describe two controversies that are not even very related except for their name, even be discussed seriously with the current high volume of repeating the same arguments?) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This is what I'm trying to suggest at #A random thought above. The controversy over ethics (prior to applying the "but ethics!" criticism) can be delegated to one small 3-4 paragraph section of this article as covered as a FRINGE topic, and then keep the rest of the topic focused on the harassment aspect that is the more common application of the controversy. --MASEM (t) 23:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

To counter Red Pen's assertion of it 'not being a movement'. All of these articles cite it as a movement in some way: [38], [39], [40] (Yes, even Gawker), [41] (Erik Kain), [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48] Please do tell me all about how 'RS don't treat it as a movement, it's a hashtag'. Tutelary (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The "movement" is not notable; the harassment that has been done under the guide of a movement is. Focusing the section title on the hashtag and not the non-notable movement is appropriate. Tarc (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Elaborate on how you are able to do such without the support of RS. I've just listed about 11 sources each describing it as a movement. Where is your citations? Tutelary (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I would envision the section to be called "Gamergate hashtag/movement", because regardless of what RS say about the nature of the movement, there exists a concept of a "gamergate movement" - whether it really exists as a group, a movement, or a front for something else is what can be described more in the text. But "Gamergame movement" is definitely a searchable term by WP's standards. --MASEM (t) 06:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

lets just take a look at the sources that you posted that use the term that are on the more reliable end of the RS scale

• "some in the industry say it's a much broader movement," at best its couching it as an opinion held by a particular set of people "some in the industry say", but even that couched usage is surrounded by "many observers say they think Gamergate is all about attacking women in the video game industry" and " bullying by anonymous trolls" - the article then goes on to quote a number of developers essentially saying "you shouldnt consider the stuff that goes on under gamergate to be what gamergate is about" - not really a strong endorsement the definition of a "movement"
• "the freewheeling catastrophe/social movement/misdirected lynchmob " kind of speaks for itself in how much of an "endorsement" it is for calling it a "movement"
• The Slate article uses the term quite a bit, but also states Gamergate’s own members can’t stop their movement, since there’s no central authority "There are no less than 16 factions actively involved ... each with their own particular agendas and resentments" essentially equal evidence that it is not a "movement", simply the use of a term for simplicities sake.
• Vox uses the term "There's also a substantial, vocal movement that believes" but it also says "#GamerGate has come to mean about 500 different things to thousands of different people." and "What do the #GamerGaters ultimately want? This is what isn't as clear, and it really differs based on which #GamerGate supporter you talk to. " That is not a "movement"
• If you are going to claim "movement" you would need to use it in context " a shadowy and threatening gaming movement called GamerGate"

Thats not even looking at the sources that explicitly state "its not really a movement"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If the primary source uses a specific term to describe itself, that's a term we should use for it first and foremost to stay in a encyclopedic tone. The opinions on how legit that term is can be discussed after that and in much more detail why some think that term doesn't likely apply here. --MASEM (t) 07:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

no, simply because sources cannot use the term " clusterfuck" and some sources find that we dont have some other word or short phrase that means "an incoherent anarchic group of people each with their own particular agendas and resentments under a hashtag" and so sometimes use the shorthand "movement" does not mean that we frame the article as if it were a "movement"; particularly when we have several reliable sources that specifically state "its not actually a 'movement'" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

But we also have several high quality sources that call it a movement - without, at that point in their prose, critiquing anything - and then later going into how their actions and behavior belie the movement. We are going to have a discussion on the article about how a bulk of RSes think the movement is bogus, etc., but for purposes of framing the discussion to get to that point, we have sufficient sourcing to say "GG consider themselves a movement". We can be clear that it is a self-describe "movement" and make sure that WP's voice does claim that, but the fact consider themselves a movement needs to be stated for a logical flow of the discussion and arguments against GG. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

that is where you started - yes, some people have used the term. This use of the term is often frequently in context also stating, "but not really" -either explicitly or by the context of the use. We have reliable sources specifically analyzing and stating "'Movement?' Nope". There are not however sources have analyzed and specifically come out with "Does this make a 'movement'? Yep" . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If a critic says "This group says they are X, but I don't believe their motives/they qualify to be called X", that at least means there is a source that acknowledges that the group self-identifies itself as X - no one has to actually believe that, because we're talking the self-identifier. What that means to our writing is that 1) we can call the group as a "self-described" movement from that source, and 2) we can include all the critical commentary about that self-described designation from the source (and others), and finally, as long as we have cleared points 1 and 2 in the article, we, in WP's voice, can continue to use the word "movement" if that helps to simply our phrasing and wording, as we have it clear this is not a term WP came up with and that others disagree with. Using "Gamergate movement" is a much simpler phase than "supporters using the #gamergate hashtag", in terms of running prose. I do want to stress that as along as near the first usage of the term that we are clear that it is a self-ascribed term, and not something we (as Wikipedians) came up with ourselves, we are not ascribing any validity if they really are a movement, but just using the term for simplicity. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind using the word "movement" as shorthand (to my eyes, it's better than "hashtag"), but we do need to be clear when using it that it's disorganized and uncontrolled, and thus there's nobody who can "speak" for GamerGate — we can't attribute views to it. We can only attribute views to people within the movement who are claiming to fly its flag. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It could be that gamergater's most lasting impact other than setting the image of hardcore gamers back 15 years, is the contribution to the vocabulary "gamergate = n. a ineffectual clusterfuck of anarchists on the internet who cannot get their PR shit together and just ranting angrily under the same hashtag. Usage: Is that trending hashtag a group that will have impact? No, they're just a gamergate. " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)