Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign): Difference between revisions

GameJournoPros

Not a single mention of this on the page, despite all these sources.

Pocketgamer, China Topix, tportal, Bright Side, Ars Technica, Forbes, bitgamer, recode, Erik Kain and other industry members

NorthBySouthBaranof previously claimed Chinatopix got "basic facts" wrong and should be excluded on that basis, but the coverage is a valid interpretation of events, they just haven't been reported by other places. You can double-check for yourself. Just because a publication approaches a topic from another perspective, as most of the Asian sources do, doesn't mean it's disallowable, especially when used in conjunction with other sources to note only those things relevant to the topic.

Let's decide what should be included and what shouldn't. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with GameJournoPros is that this borders on BLP (it is an unfounded claim/inference about the actions of known living persons, something I checked on at BLP/N and was told better to leave this out). It's contribution to the overall GG story is very minor since I see little of the present proGG stuff pointing to that to say that is an ethics problem. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP problems can't be solved by phrasing it as perception? Diego below says there was no agreement on the issue of whether it should be omitted from the article. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

GameJournoPros is not a person. If it violates BLP to talk about it, then why doesn't it also violate BLP to accuse Gamergate of wide, sweeping claims of harassment and terrorism? Ridiculous. 72.89.93.231 (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The specific people who contributed to the list are living people, and making unfounded, poorly-sourced accusations about them or their behavior does violate BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering that there's little attempt to keep this page neutral despite the token cries for neutrality, I sadly doubt that these multiple sources will amount to anything at all. This page is already infamous for its partiality, and is obviously one of the bigger battlegrounds of the whole thing. Especially considering pro-GG sources are constantly questioned where as long as the anti side doesn't link Gawker or something it is accepted readily.Tupin (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The list was included at the article at one point, and was later removed because one editor opposed it based on the sources available then. Now that we have more independent reliable sources covering it, it should be included again. As for Masem's query at the BLP noticeboard, there was one editor commenting that it shouldn't be included, and other thinking that it could, so it doesn't set any precedent. Diego (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Your memory is faulty. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. You may want to read what I wrote instead of making personal attacks. Diego (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You said that there was 'one editor commenting that it shouldn't be included.' I see a lot more than one editor in that section expressing concerns about including breitbart.com's accusations. Your statement that only one editor opposed its inclusion is patently false. The sourcing for is also still weak, just as it was then: we don't seem to have any independant investigation, only a few minor industry outlets reporting on the accusations published on a site that is best known for publishing outright lies. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I said that there was 'one editor commenting that it shouldn't be included' in Masem's query at the BLP noticeboard. The only editor at that board against inclusion is User:John; meanwhile, User:Stuartyeates thought that it could be published if it's covered in independent reliable sources. Please consider asking for clarification when you don't understand why a comment has been made, before resorting to insulting fellow editors. Diego (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I see, I quoted the wrong section of your post: you said the information "was later removed because one editor opposed it based on the sources available then." That's not true, and saying so minimizes the past opposition to this information's inclusion. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As mandated by WP:DUE, it deserves a place in the article. Tutelary (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No actual collusion actually took place, this is a thoroughly debunked meme. There's no need to repeat every scurrilous and half-baked cover story the "pro-GG" people have concocted to cover their misdeeds here. Tarc (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The collusion has never been fully debunked (but that's not saying it is true either), and for that reason, as simply a claim of it, we should really not include as per the BLPN discussion even if we could. If it was dunked, then inclusion should be apparent, just like the allegation against Quinn. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There are various ways to cover this in a BLP-safe way. We have several reliable sources noting that the leak of mails happened, and that it led to several proGGs to consider it as an explanation of the early "media radio-silence", and to Kyle Orland to publish an explanation at Ars Technica. Diego (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it has been fully debunked. A wild accusation was made, a person quite rationally explained that, no, this is what the e-mail list is really for, and the accuser and associated unreliable sourced that initially mirrored it went silent. This is a dead-end issue. Tarc (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If there are multiple high quality reliable secondary sources which present the content, then it can be added according to due weight. It would certainly help if someone interested in adding the content would highlight which are the 2-3 highest quality sources, along with excerpts covering the issue. aprock (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is there aren't. We have a few articles which are relatively low-quality sources, and they're all reporting on accusations which have gotten no real traction and which originate from a media outlet best known for making things up to attempt to discredit political opponents. We need much, much stronger sources which we can rely on to evaluate the situation properly and give it exactly the credit it deserves before we give Breitbart.com's accusations a place in Wikipedia. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

So, you consider an article published under the auspices of Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher to be a low quality source? Diego (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I consider the sourcing we have here too weak to justify mentioning these accusations in the article, yes. You'll not that that is only a source for the fact that the accusations were made: it doesn't in any way indicate that they have any merit. I'm not doubting that Milo made unfounded accusations - I know he did - what I'm saying is that by including them here when they've been given only cursory attention by reliable sources we would be violating WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. We have decent sources for the fact that Milo made an unfounded accusation, but we have very, very weak sources that support the notion that these accusations are noteworthy enough to merit inclusion. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Please inform us of something that is not clear from your interventions: what level of sourcing would make you accept that this incident has strong enough sources for including it? Because I definitely want to apply that very same criteria to the numerous opinions currently included in the article. Diego (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

High profile mainstream sourcing is going to garner the most support; Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The National Review, LA Times, New York Times, etc. Of the sources listed above, only the Forbes one seems likely to gather broad support. Again, it's not about something being clear or WP:TRUE, it's about gathering consensus for inclusion. If you use niche publications that editors have never heard of, then the likelihood they are going be widely supported it as a source is fairly low, especially for anything which approaches WP:BLP requirements. For better or worse, that's how wikipedia works. aprock (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I should add that it is very rare for opinion pieces to be considered reliable for much beyond the authors own personal opinion (see WP:OPINION). As such, they should almost always be avoided in controversial articles like this one. aprock (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

One last note, the above sourcing guidelines relate to inclusion of a topic as per WP:DUE weight. Once something has been deemed of sufficient weight for inclusion (based on high quality mainstream sourcing), then other less high profile sources can be used, guided by WP:DUE weight as determined by the high quality sources. Said another way, Kotaku can't be used to establish enough weight for inclusion, but if the New York Times makes reference to a Kotaku article, then it can be used as a citation. aprock (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That leads me to conclude what other editors have already commented at this talk page, that the amount of personal opinions currently appearing in the article have been given undue weight and should be reduced.

As of now, we're giving any op-ed by a particular journalist the same weight that we give to main events, which does not make for a balanced article. The article should give more emphasis to the events that have been reflected at several independent venues, and less to the commentary on those events by single journalists in their opinion columns; unless one particular opinion has been itself collected by other media and identified as significant by other independent sources, it should be taken elsewhere. Diego (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You hit in on the nose. There are sections that are just "here's some opinions", and because opinions are going to be extensively available from one side and not from the other by the nature of this controversy, this simply is overkill on getting the point across. "GG is seen as a bad thing by numerous people" is necessary and unavoidable to state, but not to the degree that the point is hammered over and over. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As I'm an unrepentant inclusionist, I'm not fond of completely removing content that is sourced to reliable sources; I usually prefer to find it a better place when it's deemed irrelevant to a particular topic. I was thinking that it's time to WP:SPLIT this already long article upon the axis of factual vs opinion, creating Reactions to GamerGate. I think there are enough sources describing the nature of those reactions to make that subtopic a notable one, where those single-person opinions would actually be on-topic and not too much detail, in the way they're too detailed for this main article now. The current article could be made into a timeline of sourced facts and highly influential reactions (like those by Alexander or maybe Hoff Sommers, which have other journalists commenting on them), which IMHO would be much more neutral. This would also leave place at the main article to grow from the more in-depth, long-term analysis of the significance of the whole incident that are likely to happen in the future, without requiring us to delete the current content. What do you think? Diego (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

We do not need to fork anything off like this just to "eliminate the bias" on this article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the beginning attempt at a WP:POVFORK. Tarc (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

In addition, "Reaciton to" articles are WP:QUOTEFARMs, and not appropriate encyclopedic material. --MASEM (t) 21:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing undue comments it is, then. Diego (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a BLP issue to talk about a mailing list. We have multiple reliable sources discussing this and it only seems apt to include a mention of it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As above, which are the 2-3 most reliable mainstream sources mentioning it? If none (or one) are, then it's difficult to see how it should be included. aprock (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe Pocketgamer, Re/code, and Forbes are the best sources in the mix.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Of those, only the Forbes one appears to be a mainstream source, and even that is a "Games" column. As it only deals with the email list, it's hard to use it to establish due weight. Based on those sources, it's hard to see covering the topic in any sort of detail. aprock (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Re/code is also fairly mainstream, it's been founded by the main technology journalists of The Wall Street Journal and All Things Digital, financed by NBCUniversal, and quoted by Reuters, Time, MacWorld, NBCNews and many international outlets (El Pais, CNET, Europa Press, TeleCinco... I quote major Spanish outlets because those appear at my Google News search, but I'm sure other languages will quote Re/code too). They don't come any better in terms of reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Diego (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"Some games journalists discussed, among other things, GamerGate, on a private mailing list." That's a mention. It doesn't say much, but that's about all there is to say about it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Then say just that. It's been given more weight in RSs than some of the opinions already in the article. Diego (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If we can get a consensus to add it, let's do it. The article's hard-protected right now or I would have done it myself. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional mentions in Mother Jones and Vox, as well as a response from James Fudges at GamePolitics.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

WhatCulture considers it the 5th biggest achievement of GamerGate http://whatculture.com/gaming/10-biggest-victories-gamergate-achieved-far.php/5 who are we kidding now that this isn't relevant? Loganmac (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

#StopGamerGate2014

The Daily Dot becomes the first source to examine the backlash-hashtag #StopGamerGate2014 that was launched in the wake of the mass-murder threats against Sarkeesian and Utah State University. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's blacklisted from Wikipedia, too. Funny how that commitment to reliable sources lapses from time to time.--ArmyLine (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Uhhh, no, The Daily Dot isn't blacklisted. If it was blacklisted, the link wouldn't even show up here. We use other The Daily Dot work as sources for this article already, actually. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

However, it is a weak source. Let's wait for a better one on this. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's not banned as of now. It might have been a year ago when I tried to add a link. It's still worth observing that the commitment to reliable sources espoused by the frequent editors to this page wanes in the face of tenuous criticism of the subject.--ArmyLine (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

We are at a point here where it is very valid to review earlier sources and consider if they are really necessary or appropriate in light of more recent, more mainstream sources (see my point about the latest WAPost above); later sources will have a better hindsight view to help balance the coverage appropriately. That's why I think going on we have to be very hesistant about using "weak" sources like Daily Dot (It's fine for less controversial topics, but not here). Note that I don't think within 48hr we'll lack a good quality source for this current hashtag... --MASEM (t) 05:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I bet this counts as a "good quality source".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said, within 48hrs I figured we'd have some; that, and a new WAPost one (separate from the summary above), and a Metro.uk... --MASEM (t) 14:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The hashtag's pretty much already dead. Gamergate deniers don't seem to have much commitment to their ideals. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it? How can you tell? If it is dead then maybe we can add it in that there was another counter-hashtag that died. --86.169.65.31 (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There are sites that map Twitter hashtags. It turns out I was wrong. It was dead as of a few hours ago. It's back at the moment, and centred on New York ... and the Philippines. I'll leave that to speculation. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

read: the earth turns, there's timezones and now the western world is waking up to flood social media again. We'd have to wait days to determine its' "death". --MASEM (t) 15:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

So... Check back in a week then? --86.169.65.31 (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Other sources for this: Kotaku, Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times, Forbes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I still want to wait 7 days, well, 6 days now, before I want to say that this thing is going to stay. I knew a fair few people who thought GamerGate was another small internet shitstorm that would blow over in two weeks, and it has lasted for over a month now. I think. Let's see whether it can keep up it's momentum for a couple of days before we add it. Is that okay with you? --86.169.65.31 (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That hashtag is already dying lol http://i.imgur.com/k8NNjkB.jpg they've tried this before, but oh well it gained the attention of the totally not colluding gaming media so I guess Loganmac (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Give it a few more days, I want to see whether it will revive or not. --86.156.85.208 (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikileaks acknowledges GamerGate

I know this is primary source and twitter, but as a enourmous notable organization can this get a mention?

"Journalistic organisation WikiLeaks recognized GamerGate 'found out [their] media is corrupt'" [1] Or something like that? Loganmac (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't see a problem if it is posted as an opinion, it's a verified account. I'm just a n00b though. If you want a secondary source what about this? http://www.newstatesman.com/media-mole/2014/09/wikileaks-wades-gamergate-says-nato-corrupt-video-games-journalism Halfhat (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Edit: It doesn't refer to that tweet in particular but does show the same sort of position.Halfhat (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hasn't the results of the AMA been constantly thrown out because of the wispy washy nature of the question posed and the answer given? I don't see why we need to mention that the website backs them up in any fashion when it solely revolves around the claims of censorship happening when people are getting banned for violations the terms of services of the forums where they are claiming it is happening.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw that, and read through the linked article, and found zero mention of GG. We're not going off one tweet to say there's support. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

WhatCulture mentions that "Wikileaks commented on their twitter" about reddit "stiffling the discussion of the GamerGate scandal" in an article about the biggest victories of GamerGate http://whatculture.com/gaming/10-biggest-victories-gamergate-achieved-far.php/10 Loganmac (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm hard pressed to see WhatCulture as a significant source. On the plus side, that was very funny. Well, the few pages I could see before the site seemed to die, anyway. - Bilby (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

WhatCulture is definitely not reliable, it's more a clickbait site. They might express points that could be discovered in other sources, but we can't use them directly. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Better lead sentence

Gamergate (sometimes referred to as GamerGate or as a hashtag #gamergate) is a controversy in video game culture which began in August 2014. Gamergate is the name of a controversy that started in August 2014 primarily over social media as a culture war between members of the video game media, developer community, and gamer community over pre-existing issues of sexism and misogyny in the video game culture, and the ethics of video game journalism. Aimed to capture a few issues that have been id'd above, adding in the idea this is a culture war (more than enough sources), identifying but not pigeonholing key players, and avoiding the "inherent"/"ingrained" issue with the fact that these problems have been there. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with that change. Q ^{T C} 03:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Could replace the laundry list with "a culture war in video game culture over pre-existing issues..." More concise and inclusive. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with masem Retartist (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It has so many clauses that it seems like it should really be 2 sentences. Also the way two different meanings of the word "over" are used in the same sentence is a bit jarring. How about this: "Gamergate is the name of a controversy over pre-existing issues of sexism and misogyny in the video game culture, and the ethics of video game journalism. The controversy first arose in August 2014 and was primarily propagated via social media as a culture war between members of the video game press, developer community, and gamer community." ? -Thibbs (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I prefer yours, Thibbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willhesucceed (talk • contribs) 05:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:2c Gamergate is a culture war that began on social media in August 2014 involving the video game media, developer community, and gamer community over pre-existing issues of sexism, misogyny, and journalistic ethics in video game culture. Cleaned up language, 51 words down to 36, better links. --beefyt (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I like it better, but I still find there to be too many qualifiers splitting the subject. At its most simple core it's "a controversy/culture war over pre-existing issues... and journalistic ethics." That's what the article should lead with. Then further qualifiers could be added to the end of the sentence. How about this: Gamergate is a culture war over pre-existing issues of sexism, misogyny, and journalistic ethics in video game culture that began on social media in August 2014 and involved the video game media, developer community, and gamer community. ? -Thibbs (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd split it up to make sure to add "members of" since not all of those groups are involved. eg "...journalistic ethics in the video game culture. The controversy started in social media in August 2014 between members of the video game media, developer community, and gamer community." --MASEM (t) 05:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate was not a "culture war", it was a lynchmob that backfired.[2] "War" implies that there were two belligerents involved. Kaldari (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That very article says "culture war". Also, a culture war is not always a war with two explicit sides, but can be a single group against a larger shifting tide. --MASEM (t) 06:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. Opposition withdrawn. Kaldari (talk) 07:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I think of the versions suggested, Thibbs' is the most readable, although I prefer the existing wording of 'ingrained' over 'pre-existing'. Kaldari (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

AgreeI think that's far better. Halfhat (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

reliable sources dont present it as a "culture war" - they present it as "Ostensibly a campaign against corruption in journalism but in practice a grassroots attack on feminist critics in gaming" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. This is a disingenuous treatment of the subject, bordering on deceptive, and I'm ashamed that an admin is actually behind it. This is ingrained sexism and harassment, long-ingrained in the gamer community that came to a boil over false allegations of impropriety against a female game developer. This is not a "culture war", unless there's a "culture" that is pro-sexual harassment in play here. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

We have to be neutral as Wikipedia editor. The neutral stance, with reporters not invested in this, is that this is a culture war that has included unfortunately nasty tactics. If you cannot take the middle ground stance (proGG or antiGG side) , you should not be touching this article. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What refs will be used for the use of "culture war"?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

WAPost, Stuff.co.nz Metro UK, CBS News, (arguably CNN though there it is a quote from a game journalist). I believe there's a few older ones but those are all in response to the Sarkeensian shooting threat news. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

We should really get something on the shooting threat into the article soon.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this is helpful. Could we combine it with a solution to the issue 33/basic lack of explanation? It seems like both are aiming at parts of the same basic issue of providing context. valereee (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

AND: in the interests of developing something that won't need nitpicky usage edits -- 'among' rather than 'between' probably, because more than two entities. valereee (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 Disagree leave the misogyny bit off Ginnygog (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You cannot remove something that everyone has been saying exists as part of it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the fact that there's no specific party to blame for the misogyny (in fact it is clearly a standing issue through all three parties listed). But Ryulong's 100% correct that since every non-gaming mainstream source has called out something misogynic about the situation (whether anti- or pro-GG), it is part of it. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

When was misogyny called out on the anti-GG side though?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

As pointed out with the "ingrained" discussion, the industry has been dealing with internal misogyny; they may not have been called it after it started, but the statement does not belie that it was a problem. --MASEM (t) 02:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Revamp per opinions above: Gamergate is the name given to a culture war within the video game industry over pre-existing issues of sexism and misogyny in the video game culture, and the ethics of video game journalism with the maturing industry. The controversy occurred primarily over social media starting in August 2014 between members of the video game media, developer community, and gamer community. --MASEM (t) 02:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Just started reading this and am troubled by the "ingrained" piece, solely because the source reports opinion just as much as fact. Is there a suitable replacement, preferably from a more standard RS? Otherwise that really should come out, especially since it is made in Voice.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There are countless sources that use various other synonyms for "ingrained". "Ingrained" is a compromise over every other synonym out there that says that misogyny and sexism are part of the gamer DNA.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If there are countless, can you suggest a few? Preferably from high quality sources like newspapers, or academic journals. I'm skeptical of making any bold claims in Voice from the gaming press.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

TKoP, please search the talk page archives. NPR, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Salon, Time, CBC, etc. etc. etc. Don't mean to seem short about it, but this was litigated extensively and "ingrained" was the agreed-upon consensus. We originally directly quoted The Washington Post, which stated that "Sexism in gaming is a long-documented, much-debated but seemingly intractable problem." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh, and what are "indie works"? Readers shouldn't have to click on the references to find out, and we shouldn't expect the reader to know what those are.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Read the talk page's archives.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The archive says that the consensus is that the article has problems in this way; it needs to be fixed. I know; I was there. Quit biting people. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We don't expect the readers of this article to read the archives. Indie works needs to be explained or blue linked.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

We expect you to read the archives when we tell you to when these points have been raised time and time again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

First off, it is a violation of WP:BLP. Secondly, it isn't true; as RSs point out, it really isn't related to, particularly severe in, or specific to gamer culture at all. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Ummmm, no. It's not a violation of BLP. Video game culture and the industry do not constitute an identifiable group. Some sources state that it's part of a broader issue, but also state that video gaming has a particular problem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Video game culture and the industry do not constitute an identifiable group", but the members of GameJournoPros do, even when RSes don't identify them by name? 70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. GameJournoPros is a small, identifiable group with, per sources, no more than 120 or so members, whereas "GamerGate" and "Video game culture" are large, amorphous and unidentifiable masses. They are not even groups, really — they are "things." GamerGate's issue with this has been repeatedly discussed in reliable sources; since there's no way to actually control who uses a hashtag, you don't have an organized group so much as an anonymous mob. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not a violation of BLP. No singular person is being singled out and accused of being a misogynist or sexist. A nebulous group is. A group is not protected by BLP. And in another section I had linked to 8 sources used throughout the article that use the word "misogyny" or a variation to describe Gamergate. We are not going through this every time some new Gamergater comes to have his say.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, I could post flat-out racism on Wikipedia and it would be "not a violation of BLP". 70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And it might not be. It might be removable for other reasons, such as WP:NOTHERE, but it might not be a violation of BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Harassment of trans and queer game developers

The cover story of this week's East Bay Express is about Gamergate.[3] It's a pretty long and detailed piece. Interestingly, it includes discussion of a topic not mentioned in our current article: harassment of trans and queer game developers. It might be worth integrating some mention of this issue into our current article. Kaldari (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

“ Recently, Anthropy and a few other self-publishing game designers and writers have begun making their rent via a platform called Patreon. ”

“ Gamers accused [Jenn Frank] of being biased because she contributes to Quinn's Patreon account ... details that she had initially disclosed in a footnote in her piece but were taken out by Guardian editors ”

“ a video game reporter named Patricia Hernandez was called out online for not fully disclosing that she was friends and former roommates with Anthropy despite having written about her work multiple times for the online video game publication Kotaku ”

“ other accusations were being hurled at journalist Ben Kuchera claiming that he had an undisclosed conflict of interest when he reviewed Quinn's Depression Quest in March for the online publication Polygon because he contributes to her Patreon account. ”

Let's finally talk about Patreon, shall we? Link to other sources in the archive. Also Reason. Gamergate's discovering Patricia Hernandez's conduct seems noteworthy. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's been a major part of discourse. How briefly can we summarize it? Halfhat (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Willhesucceed: the East Bay Express article downplays those quoted examples, though, even including this rebuttal:

Polygon editor Christopher Grant, meanwhile, published a blogpost reminding readers that "like Kickstarter, these contributions aren't investments. There is no equity to be gained, there is no market to capitalize on."

And at the same time they are contrasted with the

common practice for big-budget video game companies to wine and dine press at fancy events and give away free products like new game consoles.

So I'm not sure it's as damning as you would make it appear. Multiple editors above had also expressed concern with using Reason for BLP statements, which would include Patreon or any ethics claims about journalists. Woodroar (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether it's damning or not, it's noteworthy. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's noteworthy, but you're putting the emphasis in the wrong place. The pull quotes you mentioned are given as examples of minor ethics violations, and they are contrasted with major ethics violations of the AAA title developers. We could say something like this: Sarah Burke of East Bay Express mentioned often-cited concerns within the GamerGate movement, such as a reporter being "friends and former roommates" with a developer, or donations from reporters to developers via Patreon accounts. Burke contrasts this with the "common practice for big-budget video game companies to wine and dine press at fancy events and give away free products like new game consoles" in order to influence positive reviews, a concern which GamerGate has not expressed. Just a thought. Woodroar (talk) 05:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I propose these changes to the second and third paragraph

I tried to make this less emotive, removed some redundancy, removed a couple parts that implied small pieces of unsourced information and tried to make it flow better.

The controversy came to wider attention due to the sustained harassment indie game developer Zoe Quinn was subjected to after an ex-boyfriend posted numerous allegations on his blog in August 2014, including that she had "romantic relationship[s]"[7] with members of the gaming media which prompted concerns that the relationship led to positive media coverage for her game. Although the concerns of at least one of these proved unfounded,[8][a] allegations about journalistic ethics continued to clash with allegations of harassment and misogyny.[10] The rising popularity of the medium, and greater emphasis on games as a potential art form, has led to a commensurate focus on social criticism within gaming media and indie works.[9][12][13] This shift has prompted opposition from more traditional "hardcore" gamers who view games purely as a form of entertainment.[6][9][12][14] Other topics of debate have included perceived changes or threats to the "gamer" identity as a result of the ongoing changes to the gaming industry.[2][3][4][5]

Allegations of impropriety in gaming media have prompted policy changes at several outlets, and commentators generally agree that systemic problems in the gaming media need to be discussed; however, the harassment and misogyny associated with GamerGate is seen as having poisoned the well.[10][12][15] Furthermore, the focus of the movement on a heretofore relatively obscure independent developer rather than AAA publishers has led to questions about its motivations.[14][15]

Halfhat (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The allegations which have been widely reported in reliable sources (which are the only ones we care about) have been shown to be false, and we have no interest in any of the others. You've also removed extensive discussion of the threats against Quinn and others and how they are seen as being responsible for the fact that mainstream sources have focused on the movement's misogynistic, harassing and trolling elements. Those parts of your proposal are not acceptable.

We can get rid of the word "allegations" before harassment, though — it's well-sourced in reliable sources that such harassment has happened. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

as per NorthBySouthBaranof. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Would discussion did I remove? It was just repetition. Halfhat (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The lead paragraph should be a succinct and thorough summary of the article. There's nothing in the first paragraph about the harassment campaign that counts as repetition.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What sourced facts have I missed out?Halfhat (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not "just repetition" and you didn't address the issue of raising unsourced and irrelevant claims about Zoe Quinn. You won't get any consensus for that version. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What sourced facts did I miss? Halfhat (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Look If I've actually missed out sourced information say what I've actually missed out. Halfhat (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposing additing on Sarkeesian shooting threat

Only doing this to get local consensus first, then will tag w/ edit request to get someone to do that.

At the end of the para that starts "The harassment expanded to include renewed threats against Sarkeesian...", we should add the following:

In mid-October, Sarkeesian cancelled a lecture she had planned to give at Utah State University after the school received a shooting threat attributed to Gamergate supporters that referenced the École Polytechnique massacre; Sarkeesian stated she only cancelled the engagement after the school could not assure her safety at the event due to state laws, but will continue to speak elsewhere.<ref name="nytimes asu"/>

<ref name="nytimes asu">{{cite web | url = http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/technology/gamergate-women-video-game-threats-anita-sarkeesian.html | title = Feminist Critics of Video Games Facing Threats in ‘GamerGate’ Campaign | first = Nick | last = Wingfield | date = October 15, 2014 | accessdate = October 15, 2014 | work = [[New York Times]] }}</ref>

Note that I do not think we should even get into any issue on the state law gun laws (allowing for concealed carry that the school could not interfere with), just that they couldn't assure she would be safe. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It's Utah State University, not Arizona. Also I think we can use all of the references provided when it first came out like the one from CNN and such.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

And as stated before

• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://kotaku.com/terror-threat-targets-anita-sarkeesian-for-speaking-at-1646371245|title=Anita Sarkeesian Cancels Speech Following Terror Threats [UPDATE]|last=Schreier|first=Jason|date=October 14, 2014|work=Kotaku|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/14/6979071/utah-state-university-anita-sarkeesian-threats|title=Utah State University threatened with school shooting over Sarkeesian appearance (updated)|first=Megan|last=Farokhmanesh|date=October 14, 2014|work=Polygon|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58521856-78/sarkeesian-usu-video-feminist.html.csp|title=Feminist cancels USU talk after guns allowed despite death threat|last=Alberty|first=Erin|date=October 14, 2014|work=The Salt Lake Tribune|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/10/14/anita-sarkeesian-cancels-speech-after-school-shooting-threat-at-utah-state/|title=Anita Sarkeesian Cancels Speech After School Shooting Threat At Utah State|first=Paul|last=Tassi|date=October 14, 2014|work=Forbes|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/10/death-threat-forces-cancellation-of-sarkeesian-university-speech/|title=Death threat forces cancellation of Sarkeesian university speech|first=Sam|last=Machkovech|date=October 14, 2014|work=Ars Technica|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scpr.org/blogs/newmedia/2014/10/14/17424/feminist-video-game-critic-anita-sarkeesian-receiv/|title=Video: Feminist video game critic Anita Sarkeesian receives latest in series of death threats - 89.3 KPCC|last=Roe|first=Mike|date=October 14, 2014|work=Southern California Public Radio|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.hjnews.com/news/threat-of-deadliest-school-shooting-in-american-history-leads-feminist/article_0eb29ed0-5404-11e4-a274-3334768d75c3.html|title=Threat of 'deadliest school shooting in American history' leads feminist to cancel USU lecture|last=Cannon|first=Kelly|date=October 14, 2014|work=The Herald Journal|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/15/tech/utah-anita-sarkeesian-threat/index.html|title=Anita Sarkeesian cancels Utah State speech after threat - CNN.com|last1=Ahmed|first1=Saeed|last2=Marco|first2=Tony|date=October 15, 2014|work=CNN|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/15/gamergate-feminist-video-game-critic-anita-sarkeesian-cancels-utah-lecture-after-threat-citing-police-inability-to-prevent-concealed-weapons-at-event/|title=‘Gamergate’: Feminist video game critic Anita Sarkeesian cancels Utah lecture after threat|last=McDonald|first=Soraya Nadia|date=October 15, 2014|work=The Washington Post|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/15/anita-sarkeesian-feminist-games-critic-cancels-talk|title=Feminist games critic cancels talk after terror threat|first=Alex|last=Hern|date=October 15, 2014|work=The Guardian|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ksl.com/?sid=31957809&nid=148&fm=most_popular&s_cid=popular-1|title=USU receives threatening email; feminist speaker cancels speech - KSL.com|first1=Natalie|last1=Crofts|first2=McKenzie|last2=Romero|date=October 14, 2014|publisher=[[KSL-TV]]|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

We only need one source to explain the cancellation, and the NYTimes is considered the best quality source for news like this. These other sources may be useful elsewhere but we don't need much on this. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

1. The NYT source cites the fact that the anon used the name of the killer in his e-mail, rather than mentioning École Polytechnique by name, not sure how crucial that difference is.
2. The message being conveyed to Sarkeesian was; "I will kill people at that school because you are a woman", that is why the anon signed the threat "Marc Lépine". I don't know if the NYT is making that IMO critical point, don't have time to read top to bottom right now unfortunately. Tarc (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The NYTimes and most of the other mainstream articles don't mention the Ecole Poly shooting by name, but they mention Lepine and the threat in reference to "a mass shooting in Montreal in 1989" (this in NYTimes), which is clearly the Ecole Poly shootings; there's no question what that reference is. That's not OR to connect that up for purposes of an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Do the sources directly mention GamerGate like our WP:NOR requires them to? Sure it was tragic, but is it related to Gamergate? Tutelary (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Did the fact that the NY Times story at the top of this section is titled "Feminist Critics of Video Games Facing Threats in ‘GamerGate’ Campaign" escape your purview? Tarc (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I was kind of meaning how do they make it about GamerGate, and wasn't wanting to read through about 11 just to see or figure a consensus on how they all treat it; whether it's apart of the larger story, or something like, 'A pro GG person just threatened Anita' or related. Tutelary (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If they say it's about Gamergate then we can say its about Gamergate. Last I checked, several of the sources that are in the "Utah State shooting threat" section higher up on the page that I've formatted ito these references, several of them mention Gamergate as related to the shooting threat. And IIRC, there is also discussion here or in one of the sources that Sarkeesian said the email referenced Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

To be fair to Tutelary's point, there is no clear indication this was specifically a GG related action, which is why the wording I chose said that the implication by officials and the press is that it is (as opposed to saying that GG issued the threat, which cannot be proven) --02:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If these sources are linking the threat to Gamergate then we can say it's related to Gamergate. Stop being soft.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are linking the threat but they do not say with 100%, fact checked assurety that is was GG, so we take the same approach Huge difference in how this is written, and basic fundamental WP policy. --MASEM (t) 03:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Per this interview with RS, we might want to note that Sarkeesian has previously spoken after her harassment at events that had received potential bomb threats, only here where they could not affirm her or the audience's safety due to state law did she back down. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a section on media polarization on the issues?

from the Guardian criticizing the recent NYtimes article for, all purposes, giving the GG the time of day. Opinions aside, there perhaps might be enough to talk about how the coverage of GG in mainstream has led to some issues (an extension of the "Death of games"-type of thing) in terms of swinging the matter. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

lol the Guardian thinks media is biased towards GamerGate. At this point this article it's just impossible to get neutral. And I admire your efforts Masem. But it's like the Wikileaks/Snowden/Julian Assange page were 80% mentions of them being terrorists and traitors. A movement about journalism corruption is bound to be misrepresented by media Loganmac (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

lol ahhh the conspiracy of the media. do you have enough tin foil for your hats? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Why thank you I got my collection of tin foil hats ready sir, you're absolutely right, the media doesn't get defensive when a movement attacks them, they're just pure and neutral as it gets! Loganmac (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That is hardly a conspiracy theory. News media are not keen on reporting fairly about criticism of themselves. I think it is quite possible to keep this article neutral even with that being a factor, but it will only happen if both sides in this content dispute are willing to be reasonable. Unfortunately, only one side is showing a desire for neutrality.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it's not even a conspiracy it's just getting defensive. Yeah definitely add this, it's a decent source, and will help get this a bit more neutralHalfhat (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

BBC article on Twitter, Gamergate and even a short comment on our article

I don't know if someone already linked this (if so, I missed it) but the BBC is running an article on the background issues complete with a link to our article which they describe as "what looks like a factual account". Link. CIreland (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"looks like a factual account" ... *anguished Wookiee cry*

This is the fourth? fifth? sixth? article to now focus on internet culture as it relates to the controversy. It deserves inclusion. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is better than I expected, it has a lot of flaws and some neutrality issues, but this is a very hard topic to cover. Halfhat (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

2 Time Articles

http://time.com/3510381/gamergate-faq/ Willhesucceed (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

http://time.com/3512862/fixing-gamergate/

"The university deemed the presentation safe to proceed after consulting with local law enforcement" Noteworthy, I think. Willhesucceed (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• • uhhh noteworthy because ... Sarkeesian 's decision not to appear shows that shes a chicken shit girl, a real man would have showed up and brought his own gun? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems this harassment has gone on for three days now. Odd how few have noticed.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Is 'Gamergate controversy' the best title here?

OK, I realise this suggestion would be an uphill struggle. But I'm starting to wonder if 'GamerGate controversy' is the most appropriate title for this article. True, 'GamerGate' is probably the most common description of this kerfuffle, if only because it's short and pithy. But that doesn't mean we should use it ourselves. Using the hashtag catchphrase of an activist group for an article about a broader issue is implicitly endorsing that group's position on that issue. (That is to say: using the name 'GamerGate' for this article implicitly endorses the view of one side that it's really all about criticism of 'gamers' as a group.) Yes, some articles are titled after hashtags, but only when the article is actually about the hashtag campaign, whereas the subject of this one has grown into something broader.

By analogy to a previous case: there was another big Internet controversy a few years ago which one group of activists called 'Climategate'. But even if that may have been the most widely used nickname, our article on the subject is not called that, but rightly goes by the more neutral and descriptive title Climatic Research Unit email controversy. I'm thinking we should do something similar here.

I don't know what the best alternative name would be; my personal preference would be for something like 2014 harassment of women in gaming controversy, but I recognise that may also have neutrality issues. I'm open to better suggestions. Robofish (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME - Gamergate is the right word on that alone; in contrast to "Climategate", which bore out as the issues expanded, it was GamerGate from the start for all practical purposes. And keep in mind that it is the proGG that promoted that term even though I would argue it is a negative connotation by just name alone towards them (in that "X-gate" implies a todo over X"). --MASEM (t) 23:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much, I think the initial title was Quinnspiracy, and then it branched out and became GamerGate.Halfhat (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Your suggested title has couple of problems. Firstly it'd cover a whole lot that GamerGate does not, and it ignores the whole journalism side. Ignoring that, GamerGate is what people will look up, it's what it's called. The problem is GamerGate is very hard to define, it does include harassment, but also more sincere concerns. Halfhat (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Boy this made me laugh, please tell us you're joking Loganmac (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Spiked "An un-PC rebellion"

link

I could basically quote the whole thing. It notes that what's going on is the result of a moral panic. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It's also an unreliable source, and the author is a consultant at a PR firm. Woodroar (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

How is it unreliable? About Allum Bokhari is a political consultant. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Like the Tech Crunch piece he wrote, it's a blog: "spiked has an open door policy on contributors". When a reliable source hires him to write about video games or cultural issues, or when he is recognized as an expert in the area, then we can discuss it. Woodroar (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

How does a "political consultant" not count as "a recognized expert in the area"? 70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Potentially usable as an opinion piece, but we already give this writer's opinions an entire paragraph and I don't think they particularly deserve more space than that. His declarations that this is a "moral panic" and that linking Gamergate to harassment is a "bizarre belief" are verging on WP:FRINGE territory anyway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

And now that I'm looking into it, I wonder why we're using this source at all. The discussions about Tech Crunch at WP:VG/RS have been mixed because of concerns about it being a blog. Of course, blog posts written by staff members or experts can sometimes be reliable, but that doesn't appear to be the case here: it's a one-off post written by someone not on the Tech Crunch staff. I don't see a history of articles about video games or culture from the bio blurbs at Tech Crunch or Spiked, and searches for his name in the WPVG Google "reliable" search turn up 0 results (and 2 forum posts in the "situational" search). He works at a PR firm. I mean, I think his statement in the article is similar to other random opinions I've seen expressed online, but we don't include opinions just because someone has one. I hate to say this, but imagine the hate we would get if we sourced anti-GamerGate opinions to someone working at a PR firm, not to mention someone without a background in video games at all. Woodroar (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right. We should also remove Ryan Smith, Lianna Kerzner, Erik Kain and Christina Hoff Sommers. It'll improve the article. Willhesucceed (talk) 06:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I know you're being facetious, but at least they have some kind of background relevant to the issue at hand. All I'm saying is that our bar for opinion sources shouldn't be as low as "do they have an opinion?". Woodroar (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggested earlier that we raise the bar for anybody's opinions to "has it been quoted by a separate reliable source"? IMO removing those opinions that a journalist has published in their column, and keeping only those that have had an impact on someone else, would have a large effect toward improving neutrality and proper weight to the article. Diego (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right, a political consultant has no business commenting on what's being described as a culture war. Willhesucceed (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

PBS Brianna Wu interview Re: GamerGate

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/gamergate-leads-death-threats-women-gaming-industry/

I just saw this on TV tonight. Maybe usable. Maybe just reiterative. You be the judge. -Thibbs (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

CinemaBlend - description of GamerGate positions

Stardock CEO, League of Legends Devs, Others Support #GamerGate.

Selected quotes:

“ Brad Wardell, the CEO of Stardock Entertainment has openly come out in support of the #GamerGate movement: "The problem is that the gaming media gets more hits from demonizing game makers which makes their audience angry and causes them to lash out at the appointed villain. So contextless articles are written designed to make you hate someone, usually people that the article writer already has a problem with. " ”

“ gamers felt as if the gaming community is losing the battle, and morale is dropping due to the larger media outlets not properly conveying what's really going on surrounding the #GamerGate controversy, painting the movement mostly as one designed to harass women. Many of the gamers are desperately pleading for developers to step forward and help them support #GamerGate in the open. ”

“ Additionally, a Riot Games employee [League of Legends] also came forward to support #GamerGate: "I know you don't really need to hear this but please don't harass anyone” … “Having said that, I really appreciate that this whole thing exists and applaud the level headed and respectful ones among you. The thing I'm afraid of is that without a movement like this, another game like Fallout 2 might never see the light of day. For a game like that to get made everyone in the room has to be able to discuss what the experience of enslaving people and buying a prostitute for your mutant friend will be. I have a hard time imagining that conversation comfortably taking place today and that's really sad." The sentiment above about not being able to have those conversations has been reiterated twice before during the #GamerGate debacle by other developers ”

“ A developer from a post-Soviet Union country talked about this very thing, saying "Today we are on a crossroad. Direction A means w, [sic] as indie developers commit ourselves to censorship and Direction B means we keep our “artistic freedom." ”

“ Daniel Vavra, the writer and designer for Mafia and Mafia II currently working at Warhorse Studios on Kingdom Come: Deliverance, also spoke out on behalf of #GamerGate. "Assassin’s Creed had 5 different articles about its lack of a female character on the front page of an industry website in one day. Five! Next to each other. And we can continue: the Far Cry 4 cover “scandal,” Stanley Parable was accused of racism, Wildstar was accused of sexism, God of War, Hotline Miami, Bioshock, Divinity Original Sin, Witcher… Nobody ever dares to argue or protect his art, because it would mean instant accusation of misogyny/racism/homophobia/sexism… And then you realize that the people who are accusing others everyday have terrible conflicts of interests and very weird ethics. The pot calling the kettle black. And they will never be happy. If you don’t have a gay character in your game, you are homophobic, if you do have gay character in your game, you are homophobic, because they don’t like the character. " ”

Diego (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

So basically this is a few developers saying they don't like video game journalists criticizing their games for perceived issues of sexism, homophobia, etc., and they support GamerGate because they want video game journalists to stop criticizing their games.

Such a commitment to journalism ethics I have never seen in my life. And by that I mean it's literally the opposite of a commitment to journalism ethics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You know, that [League of Legends] guy is sooo right . I have NEVER played a game that was any good at all that did not involve buying an alien prostitute for my friend. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a forum, we're not here to discuss the legitimacy or lack there of GamerGate, only how to best cover it. The questions are, are their opinions worth covering, and the reliability of that site (I'm not familiar with it). Just because you don't agree with some opinions doesn't mean you shouldn't cover it.Halfhat (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You're making me uncomfortable.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

dont tell me the social justice warriors have gotten to you too? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is that, plus a RS quoting them and analyzing their words and placing them in context. I thought you said we cover what reliable sources write about, and it doesn't matter what we think of it? Diego (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, we can put in the article that some video game developers support Gamergate because they don't want video game journalists criticizing their games. If Gamergate wants to hoist itself on its own petard, who am I to stand in its way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a decent source. I'm far from the best to judge that though. Here's job information http://www.cinemablend.com/features/Cinema-Blend-Jobs-328.html Halfhat (talk) 11:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Also on The Escapist - here and here. Diego (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

We can also note the response to this line of thinking, as expressed by Kyle Wagner:

“ "The demands for journalistic integrity coming from Gamergate have nothing at all to do with the systemic corruption of the gaming media. They've centered instead on journalists purportedly pursuing social-justice agendas and on ridiculous claims that the press sees gamers as vectors of social contagion. Some of the complaints, like the idea that outlets ought to reconsider their editorial positions if enough readers disagree with them, even stand in direct opposition to traditional journalistic ethics. ... The problem, in other words, isn't that journalists have agendas; it's that some of them have the wrong agendas. ”

“ What's funny about all this is that a true interrogation of the corruption of the gaming press would materially harm the status quo that Gamergate is fiercely trying to protect. If what you want is yet more games about space marines and orcs in which women serve as props and decoration, why go after the de facto marketing departments of the people who make them? ”

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Deadspin a sports blog? Diego (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't CinemaBlend a movie blog? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Er, no. Despite its name, it describes itself as an "entertainment site. Reporting on movies, television, video games, and pop culture". Diego (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be mostly about movies, with perhaps one writer working on video games and republishing thinly-repackaged press releases. Deadspin also has some video games coverage.

More to the point, it doesn't really matter what the blog is about; it's a valid opinion piece, just like the opinions expressed by video game developers. Kyle Wagner's opinion has been referenced approvingly in a wide variety of reliable sources, which I'm pretty sure is more than you can say from anything from CinemaBlend. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

So, despite the shape of the arguments, this looks like an agreement to cover the opinions of pro-GG developers from the sources in this section, in the terms discussed. Let's see if we can write something down with them. Diego (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

They have two writers for video games, actually. Willhesucceed (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Independant published an article on GamerGate

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/gaming/gamergate-personal-attacks-and-threats-have-to-stop-say-e3-organisers-9798264.html

I thinks E3 organizer's comments warrant mention. And some other opinions. Halfhat (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart / Yiannopoulos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a head's up

This is WP:FORUM. Dreadstar ☥ 22:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It seems like there is a furore growing over the announcement of a Postal-like game, which simply goes by the name "Hatred". Hopefully, it won't turn out to be another headache for you editors, but I would like to forewarn you of another possible sh*t-storm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎203.106.158.198 (talk) Sigh, how charming. It is already being tied to the larger Gamergate topic, too; "An aspect of the current Gamergate argument is that core gamers are upset at critics for looking at video games as anything other than for fun. Now a video game pops up which identifies a game about sociopathy and mass shootings as a pure, gaming pleasure?" - Daily Dot. Tarc (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC) How has the left become so much like the right? Buckle up everybody! Willhesucceed (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC) We should not pay any mind to a video game expressly made by a Neo-Nazi/white supremacist group to bank on the Gamergate situation.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Not sure if it's worth a mention yet, but if it really is designed to simulate the killing of "social justice warriors", as the marketing implies, then down the road it may tie in to the larger hate screed of the gamergate crowd. Tarc (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC) collapse per WP:FORUM The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. No, we should really never give a Neo-Nazi group the time of day.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC) The Westboro Baptist Church and ISIS have wiki articles. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC) The WBC and the Islamic State are not Neo-Nazi groups. The group behind Hatred is a Neo-Nazi group trying to cash in on Gamergate by going "we're not making a politically correct game, we're making a game where you get to kill brown people indiscriminately". If they do not gain notability, then they don't get mentioned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Your moral ranking of ISIS and WBC as better than neo-nazis is interesting. The group isn't known to be neo-nazi. One of their developers wore a Polish Defence League shirt. Perhaps they're simply more tolerant of differing opinions. Even if they are a neo-nazi group, so what? The solution to hateful expression is more freedom of expression. Anyway, this is not a forum. Willhesucceed (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC) I honestly don't know what the fuck you're trying to do here. People involved in the development of Hatred are espousing extreme right ideals in their video game and banking off of Gamergate's "we want games where you shoot people and not ones where there's a political message", not to mention the "Polish Defense League" is just another right-wing group. The Westboro Baptist Church's hatred of everyone and picketing funerals of people blaming the gays, Jews, blacks, etc. for all of the worlds' ills and the Islamic State's jihadist and genocidal actions across Syria and Iraq are terrible and you were the person to originally make a comparison here. The video game Hatred should not be given the time of day on this article unless it is actually tied into Gamergate and used as an example of the fact that the movement is a right wing hate group as well.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC) I'm not trying to do anything. Oh, and clearly, this link Cathy Young provides in her Reason article points out that Gamergate is not a right-wing hate group. Now let's stop. Willhesucceed (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC) 360 is not a suitable sample size. And there's so much else out there in the sources of this article and sources posted on this page during the protection that lead to the fact that it's a conservativistic reaction regardless of how many people with Guy Fawkes masks say they're libertarians.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC) We should wait to see if the mainstream sources notice this and incorporate it into the narrative (I can see the potential for that happening but clearly not yet). --MASEM (t) 16:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Polygon (which I note doesn't connect the game to GG), but would not include yet. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Did the guys who make this say that this was somehow tied into gg, or is that the newspapers? --86.156.85.208 (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Doesn't matter, all it takes is a few a freelancer to say it is, and you got it as fact on the Wiki article. Loganmac (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request - delete Laurie Penny

Why is she in the article? She's mentioned in all of two pieces. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Because she had something to say about it and she's a notable individual.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Adam Baldwin is a notable individual and he's been covered much more than her, and he barely gets a mention. She shouldn't be in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willhesucceed (talk • contribs) 16:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Penny is an award winning, third party analyst and Baldwin is an involved party who is an actor. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Good_research -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

In which case we should have no problem using Milo Yiannopoulos' personal blog for information, too. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yianopoulos's personal blog is full of things that Wikipedia cannot publish per WP:BLP. Laurie Penny's blog does not have that same stigma.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it can't be sourced for non-BLP issues. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Like what?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Adam Baldwin and Laurie Penny have as much coverage on this article as each other. Most other content about Adam Baldwin will probably violate BLP considering most people have to say about him in the media is that he's right wing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Adam Baldwin and Laurie Penny have as much coverage on this article as each other." And they clearly shouldn't. Penny is given undue weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willhesucceed (talk • contribs) 16:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sign your fucking posts. And AFAIK, Adam Baldwin doesn't have anything to add to the discussion here that would not be violating BLP.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not about Adam Baldwin. This is about Laurie Penny. She doesn't deserve mention. Willhesucceed (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

if this is not about Baldwin, why did YOU bring him up? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I was contrasting her with him for notability. Willhesucceed (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

yes, he is more famous probably but famous actors are not where we go for content, other than maybe about acting. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Good_research -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Why doesn't she deserve mention though? This mentions she had a bomb threat and this vaguely references some other harassment she received, all long before Gamergate and in regards to her stances on feminism rather than video games. She's a mainstream journalist who had an opinion on this matter and not at all involved in video games. She's an external voice on the matter.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

1. "long before Gamergate" This article is about Gamergate. 2. Again, only two articles. Look above at how many Yiannopoulos / Breitbart have and we're only going to be including a sentence or two.

She's just not noteworthy for this article. It doesn't make any sense to include her. Willhesucceed (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That's clearly your opinion and not held by the other editors of this article. Harassment she received before Gamergate does not mean that she cannot say anything about Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If giving two sentences to a wide variety of sources is the norm, then by that norm, she'll be left out under due weight; if that's the type of numerical sourcing we require. It's also interesting to see Ryulong's thoughts on different people and due weight. Tutelary (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by that?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Mercedes Benz pulls advertising from Gawker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adland

http://adland.tv/adnews/gamergate-moral-panic-resembles-90s-which-directly-affects-womens-career-choices/1629488701

Another person noting moral panic, like Allum Bokhari did, and reiterating that the controversy is hurting the industry, as Digitimes did. She ultimately puts the blame on the media. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

More new articles

Entertainment Weekly establishing that the issue of why GG started have been lingering in both VG and the general entertainment industry for a while.

Slate speaking to a cyberthreat investor on how the tactics the GG side has used makes them difficult to prosecute.

Another New Yorker piece.

Guardian speaking to B. Wu. Note that I think I can pull from other sources that aren't just more from Wu to explain that one element that critics of GG point out is that these are people that do not appear to have an idea of the value of the human lives they are harming to make their opinion known.

New York Magazine that can be used to source out the games-as-art trend as part of the issue leading to GG, and the stuff around DQ.

WAPost on the ESA fully stating their opposition to the GG side (someone linked E3's organizers saying the same).

Just as a thought on my head, we are definitely going to refocus much of the structure of this - there are elements that were "important" early on but really no longer matter too much to the narrative representing by these newer sources. Also now that Polygon has offered its statement on GG, there's talk other major sites will follow and this will likely lead to more media coverage towards that. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies if this was covered already, but despite WaPo's title, the ESA never actually spoke out against GG, but rather condemned "threats of violence and harassment?" AnyyVen (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Your head has to be deeply buried somewhere if you are insisting that the threats of violence and harassment are not being attributed to Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And even if we want to be that pedantic, we can clear state that the ESA spoke out about threats of violence and harassment shortly after the Sarkeenian shooting threat. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The author of the article has confirmed that "I asked for a statement on GG, and that's the full statement that came into my inbox, after a pretty lengthy convo." and "At the risk of repeating myself: I asked for a statement on GamerGate, by name, for that story.". 94.194.199.197 (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice new pretty graphs from WaPost about gamer demographics in light of the GG demographic switch issue. We can't use those directly but we can easily recreate them as free images, and I think the one showing the male gamer as the minority now is a good one to include in conjunction with discussing this as a culture war. --MASEM (t) 04:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The graphs are a bit of a tangent that I think would be more appropriate for the gender representation in video games article. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Rolling Stone interviews Anita Sarkeesian in the wake of the Utah State University death threats.

Mother Jones on prominent voices speaking out against GamerGate (Seth Rogen, Patton Oswalt, Joss Whedon, etc.)

The Week says "GamerGate has backfired spectacularly."

Jack Shafer, Reuters' staff media critic, says Internet anonymity is partly to blame for the viciousness of GamerGate's trolls.

The Irish Times says that "more than anything else" GamerGate proves "the continuing prevalence of violent misogyny in popular culture."

No shortage of RSes on this now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Deadspin not reliable

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/10/thanks-deadspin/ Willhesucceed (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As I've indicated above, save for Kotaku's statement about the Quinn/Grayson stuff, I am pretty confident we can avoid requiring any VG site sources, as well as avoiding Gawker sites (at least as sole sources), though not because of the above article, just that we can pretty much put this article on mainstream sources. --MASEM (t) 04:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm fine with leaving the Deadspin article out. We've got 80 million indisputable others that can say the same things. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

More new sources

The New Show is an official MSN show.

• Can you give me more details on The New Show? Are there outside sources which talk about it much? MSN is a legit network. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Reddit

• Reddit may be useful for finding information, but it is worthless as a source itself. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Totalbiscuit

• Totalbiscuit is a games journalist and is pretty well-regarded from what I can tell. What factual information would you suggest we cite from him? Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a new source, but it's fine for personal opinion

• What was said here which is valuable for the article? Honestly I think the article already has too much opinion as-is. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Now tell me why none of these should be included.

Willhesucceed (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Reddit AMAs and all this other stuff doesn't really cut it for WP:RS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I've read elsewhere that if it's verified it's usable. What is "all this other stuff"? Willhesucceed (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to understand what verified means on Wikipedia. Basically, nothing you have linked can be used at all on this article or any other.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS is the relevant policy here. This means that things need to be found in what are known as "reliable sources". A reliable source is a source which engages in fact checking, has a good reputation for honesty and integrity, does not suffer from a conflict of interest, ect. The fact that it is on the internet is not enough; we need to have a good source for it. Thus, just because, say, Zoe Quinn says something, doesn't mean we can put it on Wikipedia - and this is especially true if it is about a living person, as we aren't supposed to use primary sources (that is to say, stuff like interviews, self-published material, ect.) about living persons at all, unless the person is a recognized expert, or under some other narrow circumstances (i.e. it is notable that they said something or something similar). There are a lot of potential signs of being a reliable source; I would recommend you go through the WP:RS article.

More or less, we're looking for sources which are reliable. Something like Reddit is not going to qualify because anyone can post anything there with no fact checking or any real sense of accountability - we may not even know the name of the person who posted the material. On the other hand, something like CERN, NASA, or a similar source would pretty much be the polar opposite - highly recognized experts with a very good reptutation for fact checking and excellent credentials. Most sources fall somewhere in between these two points.

Note that reliability is both general and specific; that is to say, while something may be a credible source in general, it may not be in specific circumstances if it makes factual errors or suffers from a conflict of interest in a specific case. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As a subject of the article, statements from Zoe Quinn can in fact be used under the WP:PRIMARYSOURCES rule, so long as we are only using what she has said about herself and attributing it as something she has said.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Also so long as it isn't about other living persons, isn't unduly self-serving, ect. Unfortunately, Quinn's own reliability even about stuff concerning herself has been called into question; The Escapist had to issue an apology for not fact-checking her previous claims of harassment, as there was no independent confirmation of them, and no charges were ever filed. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Lack of credibility of death threats

Per Utah State University, citing the FBI:

• "Following a disturbing email received late Monday evening, Utah State University police and administrators have been working throughout the day to assess any level of risk to students or to a speaker scheduled to visit. USU police, in conjunction with several teams of state and federal law enforcement experts, determined that there was no threat to students, staff or the speaker, so no alert was issued."

• "Throughout the day, USU police worked to assess the level of threat with other local, state and federal agencies, including the Utah Statewide Information and Analysis Center, the FBI Cyber Terrorism Task Force, and the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit. After a careful assessment of the threat, law enforcement officials determined that it was similar to other threats that Sarkeesian received in the past."

We really need to be careful about this death threat stuff; no one has been charged with anything as far as I know, there are concerns about their authenticity and seriousness, and in the past people have made them against themselves for various messed up reasons.

Even beyond these issues, though, I'm seeing news articles which are reporting on these threats as if they were credible even days after they were dismissed by authorities; we should be very careful about this sort of thing, and try to make sure when the authorities are involved that they can confirm this stuff. Independent confirmation of this stuff would be nice, because many folks involved (on all sides) have reasons to lie about being the subject of persecution, or simply exaggerate in a play for sympathy. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)