Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign): Difference between revisions

The place of "Ethics" in the lede

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

---

It's long past time to start reworking the lede: we're currently giving serious undue weight to gamergaters' unsupported contention that their movement is about ethics and conflicts of interest. Let's look at the five sources currently following that statement in the lede.

• The sexist crusade to destroy game developer Zoe Quinn, The Daily Dot.
• GamerGate: Everyone Hates Each Other And I'm Really Tired, CinemaBlend.
• Misogyny, death threats and a mob of trolls: Inside the dark world of video games with Zoe Quinn - target of #GamerGate, The Telegraph.
• #GamerGate: Misogyny or corruption in the gaming community?, AlJazeera.
• Gamergate-related controversy reveals ugly side of gaming community, LA Times.

Of these, none go any further than saying that gaters claim that they are addressing ethical concerns in journalism, and at this point even that is the minority: more and more sources, when they mention gamergate's 'ethics' claims, will actually take the time to debunk them rather than just noting that the 'gamergate is about ethics!' claims exist. While many sources, here and elsewhere, treat gamergate's misogyny as a given, we only have sourcing here of the fact that gaters say that their movement is about corruption. I don't argue with that, but we don't merely say that it's a movement that claims to be interested in ethics, we say that it is one, and give that statement the same weight as the far better cited concerns about misogyny. As things stand now, this is not appropriate. It really never was, to be honest, but the sheer number of recent, mainstream sources that have come out and called a spade a spade in recent weeks should make that blindingly obvious. This article gives a good summary of what some of the highest-profile publications who've talked about gamergate recently have been saying.

The last time this was brought up the discussion was derailed by vague and never-supported claims of 'anti-gg bias' in the article. So POV pushers and SPAs take note: consensus is not a vote. "Nuh-uh, it's all about ethics" no matter how many of you say it, is not going to cut it here. "This article is already biased against gamergate and you want to make it worse!!!!1" is not going to do it either. Articles where journalists cite specific examples of ethical concerns in the context of saying 'there are real ethical concerns, but gamergate is for some reason ignoring them' are certainly not going to work. We're not looking for your opinions, we're looking for sources that support retaining this unsupported claim in the article. If you want to support the claim that your movement is primarily concerned with journalistic ethics, you need to find reliable, mainstream publications that are treating your actual activities as examples of pro-ethics advocacy. As it stands the only ones I've seen have commented on how much hate has been targeted at women and how bizarre it is to attempt to control what publications say about you by attacking their advertisers in the name of 'ethics.' Provide evidence from reliable sources that justify giving 'ethics' equal weight to the movement's far better cited aims of silencing women who say things its members don't like. Not just a few opinion articles: remember, you're trying to shout time the front page of the New York Times here. Let's see some evidence that shows that the current lede does not constitute a WP:WEIGHT problem. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

New here, but looking at the sources for the 'ethics' claim it looks to me like the statement violates WP:SYN as well. Strongjam (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following you, but if you mean that citing genuine ethical concerns as 'proof' that gamergate is about ethics, then you're right, without anything to link those concerns to gamergate that would be WP:SYNTH. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant that the statement "as well as journalistic ethics in the online gaming press, particularly conflicts of interest between video game journalists and developers." seems to violate WP:SYNTH to me. Unless I'm missing something none of those articles say anything about conflicts of interest. I think though the discussion might be better focused on what newer WP:RS have said about Gamergate. Strongjam (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This one http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201409032102-0024126 doesn't support your claim at all, it's little more than a collection of the opinions of others. Halfhat (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

What claim have I made that this source doesn't support? What I'm saying is that our sources currently may say that gamergate claims to be about ethics, but they either stop there or go so far as to discredit that claim, whereas the movement's misogynistic behavior is much better supported. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because there hasn't been any validation of the specific concerns that the proGG side has brought up about ethics doesn't mean it is not part of the issues. And even sources heavily biased against GG say, maybe not with the most pleasent language, that the proGG is based on the issue of exposing ethical issues, even if their tactics and motives are far from that. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

More vague handwaving. Please tell me exactly which of our reliable mainstream sources you are freaming as 'the most heavily biased against GG.' Saying negative things about something is not necessarily 'bias.' Is saying 'drinking poison is bad for you' anti-poison bias? Most of the major publications we have to work with now are not 'anti-GG,' they are pro-reality.

But yes, even the 'most heavily biased' sources say that gamergate claims to be about corruption. But they do not go any further than that, and this article currently does. We're giving equal weight to two points of view that are not equally supported by the sources, and that is a problem. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The issues that there is ethical and corruption problems have been identified by game journalists themselves like Leigh Alexander, etc. They know it exists (maybe not the same problems as claimed by the proGG but they will freely admit they are too close with many publishers for their own good), they want to discuss these issues with concerned gamers and fix them. But 1) they are being attacked when they wave this flag and as a result 2) other sources use this and the fact that the GG side has appeared to overlook a very obvious one , the whole Shadows of Mordor thing that happeened during the GG events, as, per their words, this is only a front over the harassment side. So the claims of ethical problems are fully appropriate for the lead and the body as they are. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

And as I said, the fact that ethical concerns exist does not mean that gamergate's claims that they are about ethics are in any way credible. Gamergate's actual actions, the issues they are actually working against, are well cited as having nothing to do with ethics, and in fact are often cited as being counterproductive if the movement were genuinly concerned with promoting high quality journalism. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not our place to say if their claims are credible or not; it is clear that the issue of ethics has been raisd by these events. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It is, however, our place to accurately report what our sources say. A majority of our sources give far less credence to the claim that gamergate is really about ethics than they do to the strong evidence that it is primarily about silencing women, and it's our responsibility to give those two perspectives the same weight as our sources do. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, you cannot keep conflating actual issues people outside of GamerGate have identified with the dubious ones GamerGate itself has been pursuing. Please stop attempting to do so. Artw (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Game journalists are involved in GG, so yes, these issues are legit in the context of "Yes, there are ethics issues, but the GG side seems to be ignoring these" that numerous recent sources have brought up. There's no conflation here, it's part of the narrative of why many of the press are getting frustrated and calling out on GG for lacking any goals beyond their campaign of harassment (as they say). --MASEM (t) 17:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of this, why isn't much longer our coverage of "legitimate criticism of gaming press' ethics that GG is nevertheless ignoring"? This has been a very common opinion in RSs, that there are severe problems in AAA houses, with some news venues being thinly disguised RP departments, yet GG has been centering their efforts mostly on freelancers and indie developers; many journalists have complained about this and written about it quite extensively. Diego (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic - GajerGate is about harassing games journalists so if Gakes Journalists point out problems in Gakes Journalism they are part of GamerGate? That doesn't make a lick of sense. Artw (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wording. "Drinking poison is bad for you" vs "Drinking poison may cause medical complications or lead to death." So it is "biased" in the sense it's giving the connotation that health complications and/or death are "bad," which is vague, but negative. They aren't either: they're neutral events. AnyyVen (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, we don't say 'misogyny is bad,' do we? We, and our sources, say it exists, just as the health consequences of taking poison do. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I responded to your point. I never suggested that the article said anything about "misogyny is bad." And it's one thing for the sources to say that it exists and another for them to call for the movement to stop. I'm not saying they're wrong, or bad, or any of that, I'm merely saying it's inaccurate to assume neutrality. Nor am I saying that sources need to be neutral, which they don't, but one has to at least be aware of any potential bias. AnyyVen (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Drinking poison isn't really the best parallel, but it makes an argument. Different poisons have different effects on your body, and if you know what you're doing you can ingest certain poisons safely, so for Wikipedia to simply describe poison as "bad" would be vague, inaccurate, and a matter determined entirely by context. Any article source using a term like "bad" while failing to go further in depth would be an opinion piece due to lack of context or factual statements. Likewise, the action of misogyny is determined by context, and there does appear to be acknowledged dispute within a number of sources. As in, "Gamer Gate says it isn't about sexism". We see that enough. Still, though, the article opens by stating "Gamer Gate is controversy concerning moral badness". Probably should be changed. I know reading me say this is getting tiring, but every time I say it, I'm told that removing the vagueness and the bias is "undue weight" somehow. It's not undue weight to just change the article to reflect that the periodicals are the ones positing Gamer Gate as a harassment campaign.

And of course, before anyone objects, I still insist the article should say, "The movement has been widely criticized as misogynist due to ongoing harassment of numerous female critics and developers". Because that is the spot-on truth that all the articles are saying. It's not a destructive change, and it doesn't undermine the information already present in the article. It just removes Wikipedia's voice from the accusations. YellowSandals (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I still don't necessarily agree with your reasoning, but I do concede that Masem's proposal of describing it as a "culture war" gives an instantaneously better picture of the situation vs "a controversy involving [...] misogyny." I also agree with your sentence, at least in spirit, though I still note given the extreme due weight of the misogyny allegations, it will have to feature at least in the first paragraph, if not the second sentence. I also agree it should be able to record the progression of events without much moral commentary, and hopefully the allegations/positions of for/against can be contained in a separate section. AnyyVen (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Numerous sources state that it concerns ethics in gaming journalism and some are indeed included in the lede. The fact so few media outlets are willing to discuss those concerns or acknowledge GamerGate's involvement in bringing those issues to light is a consequence of the fact that the media are not keen on covering criticism of themselves. Even so, we have more than enough sources in the article and elsewhere to justify the current wording. Attempts to dilute it are a product of your own bias. Do not even entertain the notion that somehow you are not biased, because anyone who has seen your comments on this topic can easily attest to you being biased.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Nobody has been able to show GamerGate addressing actual ethics in journalism, not you, not GamerGate, and not their right wing supporters. It's not just "the media" - NOBODY is able to show any substance to this myth. Artw (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That's because Gamer Gate is an angry, disorganized mob of people with their own factionalized interests. When there's no one Gamer Gate, it's virtually impossible to report on what Gamer Gate is or what it wants. However, the proposal in this thread does go to show exactly how wikilawyering has allowed the article to become biased in the first place. The suggestion is to remove mention of any of Gamer Gate's more commonly expressed stances because the reliable sources are dismissing those stances. Except the reliable sources have had to acknowledge those stances to dismiss them, thereby justifying mention of those stances. This "undue weight" claim has been pursued as far as it can go to make the article as biased as possible, and it's frankly ridiculous. Critics of the anti-GG side are being listed under the "Role of Misogyny and Anti-Feminism" section for crying out loud, while the article doesn't even have a "criticisms" or "media response" section. Why? The only reason I keep hearing is "undue weight", and it's a thin argument. To be honest, I think it's undue weight to represent the anti-GG sources as the sole proprietors of factual information and the only position worth mentioning.

Does this Wiki article not terrify anyone a little? The very idea that "moral wrongness" could be the only reason people would form disorganized, angry mobs and attack people. You want to represent it as a fact that these people are morally reprehensible and attacking their fellow humans just because they overwhelmingly hate women? God save us if true. Be neutral for your own sake - everyone has their reasons and you should not drive this article to try to explain them in terms of evil and moral wrongness. YellowSandals (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Nobody has been able to show Gamergate addressing actual concerns, except for getting The Escapist, Destructoid, Kotaku, and Polygon to change their policies, pointing out conflicts of interest with Patreon, showing that the gaming press is far too buddy-buddy through revealing things like the GameJournoPros list, and getting the EIC of Destructoid to step down for <redacted> (which nobody's reporting on, I wonder why). Willhesucceed (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There's enough sources that point to Alexander's blog post about current problems in the industry, and pointing to the Shadows of Mordor promotional thing, to show that the industry knows there are problems. They've opened up as best they can to ask proGGers to participate to help fix. There is no clear effort that shows that offer being taken that can be identified by reliable sources (I'm sure there's a number that are). Ethics are central to the proGG side, but as RS report, how much of that is a sincere concern over just a cover for the tactics otherwise used is in question. --MASEM (t) 19:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no. You cannot use an article about GamerGate not addressing ethical issues as evidence that they are going to address those issues at some hypothetical point. Artw (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Declaring someone you disagree with "biased" is not a substitute for supporting your argument. The preponderance of sources do not uncritically claim that gamergate 'is about ethics: the most they do is say the movement claims to be about ethics, with a majority citing information which indicates that this isn't credible. Can you cite specific sources that you feel support your claims? Don't just say they exist, show me which ones you mean. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that at this point there's no reliable sources describing Gamergate (or, more importantly, the controversy over it) as being about journalistic integrity. It's worth mentioning somewhere in the lead section that some Gamergate-types claim to be fighting over that, but no reliable source really seems to support that that's the core controversy here. Reading the posts above trying to argue otherwise comes across as basically conspiracy-theory stuff ("the media", as a nebulous vaguely defined group, is being attacked by GG, and therefore "the media" is censoring its true message.) But WP has to report on what reliable sources say, not on conspiracy theories about them; we can't ignore all media coverage forever just because someone makes a vague assertion that everyone we consider a reliable source is arrayed against them. And just looking at the reliable sources, there's a clear and broad agreement that Gamergate is an anti-feminist movement with a strong misogynist streak and a history of producing large amounts of harassment against its targets, who are generally female indie developers, gamers, or commentators. --Aquillion (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You could change the intro to describe the debate as: "The Gamergate controversy is an ongoing cultural conflict that arose in August 2014. Beginning with a rumored sex scandal, it later expanded into a much wider dispute garnering broad media attention. The Gamergate movement itself has been widely criticized as misogynist by numerous publications due to an ongoing public harassment of several female game developers and critics."

Given the weight of what most sources are saying, I think something like this would be both neutral and acceptable - however, I'd like to point out that the entire article needs to be re-written because right now the entire thing is not only one-sided, but poorly organized. We need sections that don't try to pin the "role of misogyny" on anyone but rather ones that simply discuss the controversy in a clinical fashion with regards to what has been said and done. YellowSandals (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Phrasing it as a "sex scandal" in any way, even if you're prefacing it with "rumored", is not going to fly. And neither is your constant insistences that the description of the movement as misogynistic be prefaced with "the media thinks...".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You try to get me banned for disagreeing with you, and every change I propose to the wording is shot down because it doesn't include Wikipedia describing the controversy as "misogynist" in Wikipedia's voice. You are a detriment to this article, and I feel you are actively working in bad faith to maintain a bias. If it's not appropriate to mention the allegations of a sex scandal - which have been reported on and which was the start of this controversy - then please suggest a better alternative instead of constantly insisting that nothing needs to change about the slant of this article. Be constructive, Ryūlóng. Stop sniping at everyone. YellowSandals (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith about other users. Anyway, the problem talking about a "rumored sex scandal" is that Wikipedia articles can't be sourced to rumors. We report things as they are described in reputable sources, which seem to universally agree that the Gamergate controversy is about sexism, misogyny, and harassment, and none of which describe it primarily as a sex scandal. Similarly, at least in the lead, it isn't necessary to preface our summary of the article with weasel words about how "numerous publications" agree on this, because every article is (in theory) sourced to numerous reputable publications; the sources themselves are available further down when the article covers the subject in more detail. --Aquillion (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a limit to how many flippant dismissals one user throws at people he disagrees with, and it strains the ability to assume good faith. And as for the alleged sex scandal, it is detailed in the following section regarding the individual who is concerns. The allegations are sourced. But if you want to insist that there's nothing wrong with using Wikipedia to say that a movement is about sexism, misogyny, evil, and the devil because a bunch of journalists think so, then I'm getting pretty burnt out trying to explain why it's biased and why it's not a very objective thing to do. Not even Hitler himself gets this kind of treatment on Wikipedia, but for GamerGate it's just due weight. YellowSandals (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

And honestly, "weasel words", you say. Imagine they weren't calling GamerGate misgoyny, but instead they were calling it disrespectful and petty. Would the Wiki article then describe GamerGate as a "controversy concerning disrespect and ingrained pettiness"? YellowSandals (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

If that's what the reliable sources described it as then yes, it would be called disrespectful and pety. Sources have described the movement as misogynistic and sexist. So Wikipedia reports on that same fact. Just because you and everyone else who has come to Wikipedia to argue the point that it's not about misogyny or that the misogyny is not a major aspect does not change what everyone else calls it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

So riddle me this. You hold this opinion and had a heavy involvement in writing this article. Why do you think it has the biased tag? No good reason? YellowSandals (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I spent more time on this article making sure that the references were formatted correctly than writing anything damning of the movement. You can go through the history to look for yourself instead of casting aspersions left and right.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think the article is labelled biased, Ryūlóng. YellowSandals (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Because editors like yourself who have no clue as to how the English Wikipedia properly works and have a vested interest in the controversy kept complaining that a bias existed for weeks on end and a discussion to add the tag in the first place never came to a proper conclusion to add it, but it was added anyway because the administrator who answered the {{edit requested}} tag took the lack of a consensus as to whether or not the article did not meet WP:NPOV was a consensus that it did not meet NPOV and tagged it. There is a difference between the dictionary definition of neutrality and Wikipedia's neutrality policy. It does not mean that this article is filled with content that suddenly shows a nebulous leaderless movement in a positive light when everything in the mainstream press, and the video game press that they so vehemently hate, points out vast problematic issues with it that consists of harassment and death threats almost exclusively sent to socially prominent women in the indie game dev world or those discussing video games, rather than focusing any sort of energy on their vaguely stated goals of seeking out journalistic integrity by going after anyone who actually has the money to pay for a good review other than their insistence that one woman's sex life had anything to do with a positive review that never existed, or even going after any of the men that have spoken out against them as the women have that are now run out of their homes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

When I entered the Wikipedia page I saw that the neutrality was being questioned. It's not up to you to say if it is fair or not, or teach us the meaning of neutral. Making accusations of vested interest against other editors is also not the best way to foster a discussion.Awaker81 12:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

So what are your current goals for the article, Ryūlóng? As far as I can tell, your opinion is that the article is fine as is, and the best course of action will be to ban all disputing editors and remove the "biased" tag. So far, this has been the approach you've pursued. YellowSandals (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I think my section below concerning six different points I think should be added to the page qualify. And the best course of action is to make sure that single purpose accounts, that is accounts created and utilized for the sole purpose of editing this page and its talk page like yourselves, do not continue to stagnate the article and push a POV that "Gamergate isn't about misogyny so get rid of it in the article and focus on something that we want it to be focused on". You, YellowSandals, have done nothing on this page except pick on the misogyny aspect by making the incredible jump that an article that defines something as having misogynistic tones, as pointed out by reliable sources that aren't the ones that every single Gamergate supporter says is biased against them because they posted "Gamers are dead" pieces and have spent all their time attacking the publications and their largely female writing staff, as meaning that "Gamers are all misogynists" which is never mentioned on this article. The article is neutral according to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. The tag should be removed once the article begins to rely more on news sources like Time, WaPo, NYT, BBC, CNN, etc. and less on all of these sources that are constantly decried as biased for the reasons I previously stated.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You are jumping to conclusion on the single purpose accounts, I just had never felt an article was in a such a poor state before, so I had never bothered to register. This is my login, period, and I would say your accusations aren't exactly a very good first impression about the way Wikipedia welcomes new editors. —Awaker81 05:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Heavily biased...

Doing a websearch to find out what "Gamergate" referred to exactly, I come across two good explanations, but as usual I go to Wikipedia too... ...only to find an article obviously written to promote feminism. The feminist editing of Wikipedia is destroying Wikipedia's credibility as an unbiased source. This is an emberassment. "ingrained issues of sexism and mysogyny" in the second sentence, jesus christ... 129.240.71.121 (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Read the archives and assorted dispute resolution threads Retartist (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has never been an unbiased source. We merely had some standards to write in a clinical, detached style. As you can see above, those are not valued much any more, either. Diego (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Diego, just let them have the article. The only thing they're doing is embarrassing themselves and Wikipedia. Go edit something else or contribute your time somewhere it's deserved. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort Diego, you were one of the only neutral editors in the beginning Loganmac (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You have to remember, we can't go off our own observations, only what the RSs are saying, and they are largely anti. The article has some other bias issues, and it's a work in progress, but ultimately we have to go off reliable soures, and to some extent echo them. Halfhat (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this article is biased, but not towards the feminist perspective. It's biased towards the perspective of mainstream reliable sources such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. Pro-gamergate sources are much more heavily represented in this article than feminist sources, unless you count Christina Hoff Sommers as a feminist (which most people don't). Kaldari (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Even granting you that, a lot of the article needs rewording to make it less loaded. Further you cannot deny there is a conflict and so atleast two "sides" you can't create a descriptive account only looking at one of them. Halfhat (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. Our article on Evolution doesn't show both sides; our article on Heliocentrism doesn't show both sides. Our role is to report what reliable sources say. Obviously different people might characterize anything in our articles differently; but something like "this topic is categorized one way by the New York Times and the Washington Post, and another way by this random blogger" is not encyclopedic wording. If the mainstream coverage is biased or incorrect on a topic, then it's biased or incorrect; if scientific journals are wrong about something, then they're wrong. But Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is not the place to go to try and correct what you feel to be errors in mainstream coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not buying this argument. Have a look at the article on Creationism. The article does not endorse creationist claims, but it also largely free from language that is clearly denunciatory toward creationism. There is no such attempt at balance or neutrality in the current version of the Gamergate article. This is especially egregious, as the controversy is not about scientific fact, but about political differences that are far more subjective, and far less amenable to any claim of either side being "right" in any objective sense.

More generally, there are two thing wrong here - several editors are problematically arguing from a positon of majoritarianism rather than NPOV, that is, if coverage is largely negative and hostile in tone, than this article must be negative and hostile to reflect that, otherwise this article would be endorsing a "fringe" view. There is also no distinction being made between *editorial* commentary on Gamergate and actual journalism. Editorial sources should be in a section on "reception" or "opinion", not as a source for factual claims. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Newsweek/Brandwatch article

Data analysis of #GG tweets. There's something we should be able to do with this but I don't know immediately where to put it. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Was just about to post this link. Even more evidence that this is not about journalism. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ill just step in and say something here since I work in stats, the methodology of that article is off and cannot be used to say that GG is about harassment. The stats only show this. "In the following graphic, compare how often GamerGaters tweet at Zoe Quinn, a developer, and Nathan Grayson, a Kotaku games journalist." This was not an analysis over the gamergate hashtag, but over the amount of tweets that some people were getting. We can also see that over 90% of tweets to each person were neutral, while 0-10% of them were split between positive and negative tweets. Another thing to think about is to see how much those certain people are participating in the hashtag themselves, and being covered in mainstream media. They will be mentioned more, as well as people tweeting to them who are anti-GG may be using the Gamergate hashtag. So yeah, using just the stats he has posted, his whole article is flawed. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The analysis does actually point out that neutrality aspect of the tweets but does come out in raw #s that the number of negative-tone tweets to Quinn vs Grayson is very different. I would not use this article to state "GG is not about ethics" but I would say that the study does show that the number of tweets toward the named females devs outnumbers those towards journalists, or something like that. There is false conclusions that we have to be careful there. --MASEM (t) 21:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, ill break it down a little more since I was in a rush to get to the store.. "the study does show that the number of tweets toward the named females devs outnumbers those towards journalists". This statement cannot be infered from the article. The reasoning is that they only focused on Nathan Grayson and Kotaku (with Stephen Totillo), it didn't look into any other male journalist who were reporting (EDIT: Or invloved) on the subject. Those stats were not looked at. Not only that, but we can see from his owns stats, using the 2 million number that was given for total tweets, that Anita Sarkessian has received .004% of tweets with the gamergate hashtag included, Brianna Wu has received .005% of tweets, Leigh Alexander has received .0015% of tweets, and Zoe Quinn around .0015% (These percentages are average, using the graph given and rounding to the closest thousand). That sample size is INCREDIBLY small, and cannot be used to show much significance. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I do agree on that point, though your math is off (10,000 "Quinn + #GG" tweaks is 0.5% of the 2M, but still small). Still points that inclusion of this we need to take care doing so. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You are right, my math is off. The graph that he included is faulty and misleading. He includes the actual stats lower. LA is is .6648%, Wu is 1.7594%, AS is 1.7594%, and ZQ is .5% (I forgot to turn it into a percentage... I'm not on the clock so I am not worried haha). But yeah, the size of these samples, as well as considering those percentages are of ALL hashtag mentions (including those from people who are not apart of gamergate) means that his analysis is flawed and should not be used. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, I'd really like to see their stat breakdown. They state that two of those with tweets directed at them (note - not affirmed to be #GG tweets) had more than all the male journalists they looked at, but they don't give a like - was it 2,3 or more like 50? --MASEM (t) 22:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Trust me, I am curious about the data also. I actually inquired the company that he said he got them from to see if they could release the data. With how deceptive he has been with that stats though, I don't trust anything he says about the data. What I am more curious about is what happened to nearly 15-20% of the data he asked them to dig up, since he asked them to dig up 25% of tweets from the gamergate hashtag (Which included the total number directed toward those 6? users in the graph. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but we don't reject reliable sources because an editor who claims to be an expert on statistics judges them to be flawed, especially when that editor is an SPA user with an axe to grind. This is because on the internet, nobody knows you don't have a PhD in philosphy: if you don't come armed with sources of your own your opinion is out of necessity given very little weight. Newsweek is a reliable source, so we can expect that they have used the data appropriately and that the conclusions they've reached are sound. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. They give enough details on there math to show that there's something incomplete and/or biased in their analysis, straight off their numbers; that's not a violation of SYNTH to reject the claims of the source - or at least not include them - if they are not clear or are suspected; if a RS put out the "1=0" claim, and we can find from the data that is fully presented that there is a clear obvious fallacy, we can reject that claim. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I never said it would be a violation of 'synth.' Why on earth would I? The article is perfectly usable: the danger here is in accepting that an anonymous editor with an axe to grind knows more about journalism than actual journalists. It's a news story based on an academic study, but it is the study itself and the lack of full disclosure of data is not a problem here. Your eagerness to reject a source based on claims of 'anti-GG bias' is completely unsurprising, of course. But we'll see what other established editors think. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I never said I was an expert, and you seem to be the one with an axe to grind. I am lurking and decided to comment on exactly what Masem said. So put down your axe. This isn't even based off an academic study, he request the stats from a company who parses those stats, and showed a faulty analysis. I never said 'anti-GG' bias either. I said it was a faulty anlysis, and it is. You see, you seem to be pushing a hard POV, so stop grinding your axe, and when someone makes an actually compelling argument and shows proof using the stats provided, freaking lay off. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You claimed to be able to discredit the analysis of statistics published in a reliable source based on your own statistical expertise, so yes, you're claiming to be more of expert than the person who wrote the article, or the person who wrote the study it's based on. Nobody gets veto a source by simply claiming to know the subject better than its authors. And your account has been used soleley to push a pro-Gamergate POV on this talkpage, so I stand by my comment about your agenda. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I said I work in stats, which is why this article was interesting to me. Everything else you fabricated to try to push your POV, once again, as you have been for the past month. The thing is, you can look at his stats and see exactly where they are faulty. What he looked at can't even be used for his conclusion, since he is focused on one experiment, but says it ALL of GG. But hey, I guess you get a pass for pushing an anti-GG agenda, right? PseudoSomething (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem: you are making a claim that you are better equipped to analyze this data than the authors of the source. This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works - unsurprising since your only experience with Wikipedia is on an article that's overrun by other similarly inexperienced editors all pushing the same pov: your experience on how this project operates is skewed by the poor example of other SPAs.

Put simply, you are not a reliable source. You are an anonymous editor using a single purpose account to push a POV. We don't care what your opinion is: we only care what you (or anyone else) can prove. You need to provide reliable sources and justifications from Wikipedia policy for every single change you make or argue against, and if you don't, nobody has to listen to what you say. You don't get to veto a source because you believe you are better equipped to evaluate the data it is presenting than the author of the source was. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Guess what Tara, let me break something to you, just because you have dedicated yourself to try to skew this article doesn't mean you are right. Masem can see exactly what I am talking about, and she(Or He, I have for some reason thought Masem is a woman, not sure) has been the best editor so far to this article, you instead, have pushed a POV so hard, that I am surprised you are accusing others of pushing a POV. There are 100x more reasons to trust Masem than they are to trust you. PseudoSomething (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This is rich coming from an account that exists solely to push a pro-Gamergate bias. You like Masem because Masem coddles the SPA army and claims that its existence is proof that this article is biased. That doesn't mean that any other long time editor is going to accept your evaluation of this source and reject mine because you claim I'm 'pushing a POV.' I'm pushing for an article that observes Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No, actually, I like Masem because she cares about policy even when it doesn't work in her favor, and tries to actually build the article from that. She looks at everything and makes her decision from that, and follows policy, no matter who likes it or not. You, on the other hand, try your best to eradicate any part of the article that you don't like, even if it has sources to back it up. Which has happened recently. PseudoSomething (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

These are empty accusations: my positions on this page are consistently based in policy and backed by reliable sources, and that's much more than can be said for an unfortunately large number of editors here. So by all means, keep on hurling those accusations, but if you can't back your positions with sources and policy nobody's obligated to listen. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Its 100% obvious, so stop hurling out accusations when you can't stand true ones coming back at you. I already backed it, Masem has seen it, and I trust Masem. Hell, Masem has been the person who has protected this article from bias on both sides, Im guessing the admin, Masem, knows better than you. PseudoSomething (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem has actually broken the three revert rule more than once to keep what he considered 'anti-GG bias' out of the article. He's really not the person to be pointing to as a shining beacon of neutrality. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

And? Weigh that with how much Masem has actually done to help the article, compared to you trying to trash the article because of your POV pushing, and we can see who we can trust more. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That's your opinion of my work and Masem's, which is tainted by your own very clear POV. It's a running theme on this page: editor with few or no contributions outside a topic arrives on the page, declares every editor who advocates for depicting this topic the way the preponderance of sources do 'biased,' and sets about making arguments with no basis in policy or reliable sources, as you have done here. I'm just trying to keep this article from being whitewashed by editors who don't understand or respect WP policy. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::: editor with few or no contributions outside a topic arrives on the page, Like yourself? The near entirety of your contributions have been to GamerGate for the last month and some odd days. I don't believe you have much claim to complain about that. Tutelary (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope, nothing like myself: An established editor focusing on a single topic is not an SPA. Once an editor is well established with a large, diversified edit history, he or she can focus on single subjects for extended periods of time without being labeled an SPA. Try reading the whole page. As I've said several times now, aside from your semi-automated vandalism reverts, my contributions are more diverse than your own. It's interesting that you have very few contributions to this page other than your weak efforts to discredit me. Stop harrassing me, now, thank you. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

He didn't call you an SPA, your only getting really defensive over that. He is pointing out your hypocrisy over the situation. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You are, obviously, unaware of this editor's past comments about my editing history. This is a completely unfounded accusation that Tutelary has made several times now. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Much of the same thing I just said. You can search the archives. But it doesn't look good when a single editor is focusing solely and intently on a single article for a long period of time and complaining that other editors are doing the same. Very similar situations, yet a double standard is employed when it's your contributions rather than them. That's the point I'm trying to illustrate. .Tutelary (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Per the quote I just provided, that's not true. Now stop misrepresenting my editing history. Your spurt of edits in the last few minutes aside, your contributions here seem almost exclusively geared towards discussing contributors, rather than content. That's a much bigger problem than an editor with a diverse editing history editing one article exclusively for a period of time. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that discussing certain editors as "SPAs" as if trying to disregard their good faith contributions is much discussing of content, do you? Even if it's speckled in with content arguments, it's not appreciated. All I ask is to stop regarding the fact that an account may be an SPA (maybe take a gander at the closed WP:AN request Ryulong filed and see the list, 70% were not SPAs) in your arguments as an attempt to disregard their argument. As the wiki golden rule says (somewhere I bet you it does), comment on content, not the contributor. I'll do such notwithstanding other editors bringing up the topic of them first, even lightly. I really hate seeing newcomers be bitten, and these contentious topics do drive new contributors. As long as they follow wiki guidelines and policies, there's nothing really harmful about them. Tutelary (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like you don't really understand why SPAs are a problem, especially in large numbers - or more likely, don't care so long as they're pushing a POV you agree with. I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you: your concerns for the 'newbies' have been noted, but I'm not going to stop calling a spade a spade. Now stop following me around making off-base accusations. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe I've seen any anti-GG (or whatever position you want to call it, I know some people take fault at the 'anti gg' but w/e) SPAs contribute to the article, more pro-GG. Which sort of tells you stuff about whether they don't make accounts because the article already suits them well or that they're not as passionate, or the fact that Pro-GG see that the article is biased against them and wish to instill some type of balance. I also don't support breaking policy or guidelines, even for SPAs like you want to say I am. All I'm concerned about is fair and civil discussion; everyone's an equal, after all in here. Your position is noted as well. God speed and hope to contribute with you in the future (probably the coming hours/days). Tutelary (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, there's that argument again. It's a favorite of Masem's: 'there are so many gamergate POV pushers - it must be because the article is biased! Actions speak louder, always. Saying you want a 'fair and civil discussion' isn't a substitute for showing it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, thats a fact. You are not a moderate trying to write a good article, you have pushed this article to try to pertain to your POV, not to actually correspond with WP policy. You don't care about whitewashing, you care about trying to make a statement in this article. You have actively tried to remove LARGE sections of this article that you don't agree with, because of your POV, and that wasn't backed up by WP policy. So just own up and accept that you have a POV, because you cannot hide from it when it is obvious. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's see the diffs of my alleged content removals, please, because I think you may have me confused with someone else. I haven't denied that I have a POV: most people do about most things. I'm denying that my editing has been inappropriately biased. You can have a point of view without trying to insert bias into an article. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, where did I say you tried to -edit- something out? You have this tendency to try to change what people have actually said. Lets go back to the topic you started about trying to remove the ethics and journalistic things out. That was an obvious POV pushing that was away from WP policy, since there were plenty of sources, which is why it is still in. I think were done here now though, now that all your arguments about trying to actually help the article just got revealed to not be true. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Is that a 'large section of this article?' I didn't advocate for 'large sections' of the article to be removed: I advocated for changing the lede to avoid giving equal weight to the well-cited content about the movement's misogyny and the very poorly cited claims that the movement is about ethics in journalism, contending that while it is true that the movement claims to be about ethics in journalism, that is not the same thing as actually being concerned with ethics in journalism. For the former to be true, members of the movement merely have to make the claim, which they obviously have. For the latter, the movement's actual activities count, too, and the majority of our reliable sources not that those have had far less to do with ethics and far more to do with silencing women. That's a change that you may not like, but I cited policy and reliable sources to make the argument that it should be made nonetheless. That discussion was, predictably, derailed with the usual vague claims about 'anti-GG bias' in the article, but that's not evidence that my arguments were wrong: it's evidence that there is a serious problem with tendentious editing on this talk page. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Look, its 100% obvious why you proposed that. Stop trying to hide it. Hell, I still remember your comments from like a month and a half ago where you kept saying the movement is about harassing women and nothing about ethics (That was directed at me, BTW.). You seriously cannot fool me, it is obvious you are pushing a bias. Pleaseeeee stop trying to hide it, its kinda sad. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is obvious, or it should be: I proposed it because the preponderance of sources are not giving any degree of credibility to gamergate's claims that it is about ethics, and in fact an increasing number are taking active steps to disprove that claim. You can yell 'I'm rubber and you're glue' all you want, but facts are facts: I'm using sources and citing policy to support my changes. It doesn't matter if you think I'm 'anti-gamergate;' having a point of view is not the same thing as being a POV pusher.

Given 1) other experienced (not POV) editors have also edit warred - inadvertently or not (and which I have admit to accidentally doing before) - and 2) there is a huge different between edit warning and being neutral and/or biased, this is an unnecessary statement and not focused on the policy based aspects of the source. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree: when you're being pointed to as The Neutral Editor I think it is relevant. I'll note that you did in fact completely shrug off my comments on both occasions that I pointed out your 3RR violations to you: you claim others have done it as well, and maybe that's true, but you've done it exclusively to promote one point of view while presenting yourself as an unbiased editor and claiming bias in others' editing. My point in bringing this up has been that your editing pattern has shown a stronger bias than many of the editors who you yourself have labeled biased. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring and bias are two separate things on WP and while one with bias may edit war, they are considered separately. Edit warring is a "sin" which yes, I did once on this article and have not engaged in (outside of anything that will fall under the 3RR exceptions) and which I have apologized for, but so have others; it's water under the bridge which I won't point figured to others other and will forgive those problems too, so focusing on that point is not helping your case. And tell me exactly what "bias" I have? I'm not proGG, I'm not antiGG - I'm looking to make this a clinical treatment of the issue, which is naturally unbiased --MASEM (t) 02:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have apologized, I didn't see it, but that's beside the point: you are making vague complaints about 'too many quotes' and 'inserting bias' and being 'clinical' and 'detached' with no real substance. You've overused those words to the point of meaninglessness. My point, though, is simply that despite your very frequent claims that you are unbiased, your distinctly 'pro-GG' edit warring demonstrates that you are not. At the very best, you are no better in terms of 'neutrality' than any other editor and it's not appropriate to claim otherwise. Your constant vague claims of 'anti-GG' bias are a reflection of your own bias. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit. I have had people (on WP, experienced editors) agree there's a biasing problem here and I am approaching it neutrally (they just refused to get involved here due to the whole GG mess to start). I am absolutely not proGG, nor do I consider myself antiGG. I can see the right middle ground that we as a clinically neutral source is supposed to take. I've been very clear on what is wrong, with specific examples that apply overall to the article. The consensus to make this more neutral is there, but only a handful of editors are trying to control the bias strongly against proGG and have not looked to reach consensus. --MASEM (t) 02:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you have the support of unnamed non-participants. Well done. We'll see if the involved editors at WP:RSN agree with your neutral, unbiased rejection of a major mainstream publication as a reliable source based on an SPA's claim that it's evaluating its data in a biased way. -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The source is not saying 1=0 or that the sky is polka dot or anything else that is obviously wrong and so you cannot outright dismiss a reliable source using a professional analytics company, because you think they are wrong and you cannot see the data they used. Thats just flat against policies , turning WP:V and WP:OR on their head! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No 1=0? "The discrepancies there seem to suggest GamerGaters cares less about ethics and more about harassing women.". Less than 5% of GG hashtag replies were to those women (We can't see if it was pro or anti GG people who sent those, also), and much less than 1% are negative. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The reliable sources have analyzed the content and presented their interpretation. That you disagree with their sampling sizes, conclusions or whatever is irrelevant.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I don't care about the interpretation. They claimed what I quoted, but their method did not analyse anything that could come to that conclusion. They analyzed the difference in response(Positive, Negative, and neutral, which was less than 5% of all tweets and did not pull from all tweets, but only the tweets directed toward 6 people) between 6 people and then claimed that all of gamer gate is about harassing even though their experiment did not look at data that could come to that conclusion. It is a 1=0. PseudoSomething (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Since when was Newsweek an authority on statistics anyway? Halfhat (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

you are joking right? Newsweek is one of founding creators of the factoid data graph. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Newsweek is a reliable news source. That's really all that's relevant here. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Even granting its reliable status on this topic, I can't be happy with publishing information we know is false, even if it goes against the word of the policies I think this is a case of ignore all rules. Publishing what we know to be false will damage the article, and could even cause more anger, including on the talkpage. That said I question a newspaper's mathematical authority. Just as news sites aren't considered the best sources for science, but imagine one claiming to have done the study themselves, before publishing it only in their story. Halfhat (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Luckily, we don't know that it's false: we merely have an SPA claiming it is false based on their own independent analysis of the data presented. Accepting the word of any given Wikipedia editor over reliable sources runs completely contrary to Wikipedia policy. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at it yourself, it's rubbish. It doesn't even at a large number of the journalists, only a few, only one news site. And again, imagine Newsweek instead self-published a study on science, it'd never be accepted as reliable, if it was properly published experts could analyse the methods thoroughly for issues, and if found they'd be addressed. Halfhat (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

100% wrong. A source presenting something that is obviously factually wrong, even if everything else from that source is nominally reliable, can be challenged/ignored as a source. It is clear without even getting into detailed statistics (eg requiring no expertise in the field) that there's enough question and absent classification of the given data to beg their conclusion. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Newsweek is normally reliable, it is the data from Brandwatch - and whomever interpreted it - that is in question. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If Newsweek published it, then we go with it since they are RS. If another RS publishes something questioning the data and interpretations, we include that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No, we can reject sources if there are clear problems with their conclusions that are obvious to show wrong; if the analysis to show it wrong or questionable required more expert knowledge, then yes, we'd need a separate source to point that out. --MASEM (t) 02:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Even if it's entirety is entirely uncontested and true, I don't believe in this sort of article can we include anything but a small mention due to it only being a single source. Tutelary (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. We don't do that for any other source. This is an RS and belongs in the article with due weight. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We should not really do anything with these shoddy statistics. This is not a scientific study and its methodology and selection criteria are completely absurd. I imagine at least part of the problem is that Newsweek's staff are either ignorant or uninterested in other claims of corruption beyond the most popularly discussed one involving Grayson and therefore did not bother to include related queries in their data set. Here are two pieces providing a decent rebuttal, albeit these are not reliable sources, and a more detailed listing of various related tweets. None of that is authoritative, but it should be clear from reviewing more extensive data that this piece and its tweet analysis are utterly worthless. Since this does not appear to be getting a lot of widespread attention there is no real reason to consider this being of due weight.-The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: The main "result" is simply "Brandwatch found most tweets were neutral in sentiment", and it appears "most" (per the graph given) is on the order of 90+%. I am unsure whether the other anecdotal tidbits are usable without noting that apparent fact given in the Newsweek source. Collect (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it also about which individuals people were most preoccupied with? That seems to me to be the point of the article. Andreas JN466 14:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Collect's summary is a serious oversimplification. The study found that the volume and content of the tweets it analysed were sufficient to constitute harassment. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to be assured, I read through the article again, and as long as we stick to their wording , which they say their conclusions are "suggested" by the data, it should be fine. eg "An analysis of two million GamerGate related tweets performed by Newsweek and Brandwatch showed that tweets towards Quinn, Sarkeesian, and Wu individually outnumbered those to male game journalists like Grayson, and they suggest that this demonstrates that GG is more about the harassment of female developers than the issues of ethics in journalism." (emphasis mine here to show that this is simply reporting what they say, making the inclusion acceptable; taking the emphasized words out would be the problem for inclusion). --MASEM (t) 15:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fine. Andreas JN466 15:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We should not be including this at all since it is a poor data set with poor methodology that has only been covered by one other outlet.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree that those statistics are completely flawed, 80% of those tweets are considered "neutral" according to them, there's no explanation on how to repeat the study which is a must and any even mediocre introduction to statistics will tell you it's neccesary to state that Loganmac (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

sorry, self appointed analytics experts dont get to flip WP:V and WP:OR on their heads and require your approval to be considered accurate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Medium published an article yesterday by Andy Baio with more Twitter analysis. In it, he gets confirmation from Brandwatch that the 90% was actually "undetermined"—that is, their computers couldn't tell if the user was pro- or anti-GG—rather than the Tweets being "neutral". Woodroar (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"neutrality is disputed"

Firstly, I'm not sure "Gamergate controversy" is even a good title for this. Probably just "Gamergate". If you want to avoid bias, changing that is probably the first step. Other media sources have referred to it as a movement within the gaming community. This is not to say it doesn't contain a lot of controversy, but that's jumping the gun a bit.

Secondly, with opening sentences like "It concerns ingrained issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community", this will never NOT be biased. This needs to be "purported issues of sexism and misogyny". None of that had anything to do with the concerns to begin with other than that it was being forced as a cheap excuse down the throats of many gamers whenever they disagreed with the far fetched claims many volatile and provocative people would make. In actuality, when things became ugly it was not "misogyny" any more than it was simply just bullying, threatening, harassing. I have yet to see a single motive for acting immaturely like this come from a misogynistic point of view, unless being upset with a video showcasing many video games set to an audio track of "too many dicks on the dance floor" constitutes sexism. Of course this is from my point of view and experience and as such has no weight on the matter.

However, it is 100% necessary that people who feel they have been subjected to prejudice based on their gender and their supporters do need to be acknowledged. Fairly. The way it is written currently is totally wrong for a "neutral" article. I'm not going to get involved but the article needs a cleanup - it's not hard at all to achieve neutrality. I would suggest that people work on it a bit more. Don't favor any of the extremes, whether it's an irate manchild from 4chan or a twitter "feminist" that is completely full of shit, just document what has happened.

Swim Jonse (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Please review the talk page and its archives. Every point you've made has been addressed in depth before. 1) We cannot use "Gamergate" as that conflicts with the species of ant 2) The press have stated numerous times that because the harassment seems completely focused on female game devs and their supporters that they are unable to call this as anything but sexist and misogynistic. 3) We would love to acknowledge the proGG side, but as has been pointed out in mainstream sources, it is impossible to figure out that side due to lack of organization and as such there is minimal sourcing from that side. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

GamerGates notability is derived from it's campaign of misoginistic harassment, as such the article is going to describe that campaign. If it was about the imaginary complaints of some game forum trolls it would be deleted since that is absolutely not notable. Artw (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The species of an ant. Well I suppose adjusting how we handle disambiguation from case to case is nothing new here, along with adjusting the reasons why we adjusted it. Though you seem to misunderstand entirely my contribution to this talk page (curious though, it warranted someone dropping by my talk page with the notification that it's a big deal, the talk page itself) - though I'll acknowledge the denial via internal justification that notability is inherent in correctness. It's extremely bothersome when someone (and this has nothing to do with "pro" or "anti") who was there and watched things play out from the perspective of being involved has to entertain the notion that a generalization is considered the most appropriate answer by those outside of whatever group(s) the issue involves. Though it isn't a surprise in any way that in a case involving a lack of integrity in mainstream news sources has to rely almost entirely on mainstream news sources for its facts. It's not any different growing up in a faux democracy and being force fed lies you can't dispute due to the nature of the thing. I don't really care about overly mechanical protocol on WP but I understand it, obviously, nor do I believe the non-notable should be acknowledged over the notable (more so it's just that if the notable are relevant to the article, minimalism in a way that eliminates anything remotely radical is the best way of addressing what we don't know 100% as facts). Doesn't change the point.

Which is where I'm pretty sure you misunderstood me as I'm not intending to give off an impression discordant with what I have said. I'm not debating with anyone about the proper way to deal with this because they wouldn't listen. I'm just stating things that will continue to keep the neutrality of this article disputed - that's all. If people get tired of people bringing up things that were apparently or obviously brought up before from whatever context they might be stated again in then that comes at the cost of not being as harsh with insistence on neutrality as possible. I'm not going to be the one to work it out because I already tried to with the article for Depression Quest right as the scandal broke out. There were too many detractors of what was easily the most reasonable way to represent everything. Like that, I'll just come back in a month when everything has worked itself out and the article inevitably has shifted to a far more reasonable state, when it won't matter anymore whether I or anyone else thought that's how it should have been before. Some[body, people] must be the one to jump through a dozen hoops and it's not my turn this time.

Swim Jonse (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't an issue with a "lack of integrity in mainstream news media". It's complaints about the video game news media. No one in Gamergate has any beef with CNN or BBC. Ther beef is with Gawker and Polygon. So there's no problem in using the former over the latter. And the former recognizes the anti-woman stance taken by the movement, over any issues they have had with ethics in journalism which everyone has recognized does not exist.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Did I once mention CNN? Do you lack the capacity to understand which "mainstream media" is being targeted in this situation? That's not an elaborate way to say CNN. It would seem obvious that I'm referring to mainstream media that deals with video games since that's...I don't know, the persistent point here? That extends beyond [Gawker's] apparent conclusion that there are no issues with mainstream game journalism and whatever people who consider themselves members of "GamerGate" (who feel they need a label - I distanced myself heavily from the whole as soon as that became a hashtag) feel about Polygon. There's so many sites involved. I don't need to name them out. I don't need to defend myself from the claims that I and my peers must be "anti-women", for the same reason I don't need to try to "take back" the label of "gamer" (one I never applied to myself in years of playing games) when someone says that it's dead when it isn't as demonstrated by the fact that nothing happened to prevent one from identifying with it. This whole thing is full of claims made from all sides with absolutely no intention whatsoever of acknowledging the burden of proof. I merely wished to state that there's no way this will be "neutral" under certain circumstances.

Finally, no need to address the rest of that individual's closed POV but this little bit is a gem: "GamerGates notability is derived from it's campaign of misoginistic harassment"

You have bias, a working example of why this article lacks neutrality and some sprinkles of basic apostrophe/spelling issues on top. I presume that explains why I received the notification about the talk page. You guys settle this war at your own pace.

Swim Jonse (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That was established in the AFD, FWIW. Artw (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to recognize that this article is not calling "your peers" anti-women. This is calling the actions of those within Gamergate as "anti-women" because that's what the media sees. Because there's no central leadership. It's just a bunch of anons going "it's actually about ethics in journalism" without having done anything to find any issues with that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand the situation. You're not imparting any wisdom here telling me WP protocol. The article covers a topic that involves sources that DO call my peers "anti-women". It lacks a sense of neutrality and therefore it is disputed. Again, it will never not be disputed in its current state. I'm sorry that there's an apparent misunderstanding of something so simple. The "media" is relative, and if one of the issues is regarding mainstream media not covering the situation correctly (I presume Forbes and many other sites that have looked at this from a neutral POV are longer mainstream media if the consensus is undeniably "a misogynistic campaign", which it isn't anymore than bullshit and general harassment from both sides), you're not going to get mainstream sources providing any information other than what keeps them out of trouble - in this instance challenging video game related "feminism" usually lands you with some bogus accusations, even if you challenge it with pro-feminism points. It's irrelevant because that's the easiest defense mechanism.

Regarding the comment about how people have done nothing to find an issues with gaming journalism, that's overlooking so much it's hilarious. You're not too unlike that other person, though while I'm not sure you have/haven't made some sort of final conclusion about something that is broad issue and topic, it's apparent that you weren't ever in a position before this started where you cared about gaming journalism. There's plenty of sources discussing this that aren't "a bunch of anons" and there's numerous ways without even acknowledging sources felt to be non-notable to resolve the neutrality issue. I proposed some that had nothing to do with the concrete facts, like people being driven out of their homes because some idiot has no control over their temper. However, I would say that at this point it seems nobody really wants neutrality, which is a shame given that this is Wikipedia. Again, I'll be back when the issue works itself out. Artw's comment was so one sided that I almost can't believe it's anything other than a troll and I don't care for that sort of thing. Swim Jonse (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

the tag will come off the article around November 6th

The POV tag was first applied around Oct 6th, so I believe a fair deadline for removal will be 1 month from there. Tags are not meant to remain in perpetuity just because a minority doesn't like how an article is presented. So, I'd like to see clear and concise arguments for what exactly one feels is violating WP:NPOV, and what the proposals are to remedy the perceives transgression(s). I'd strongly urge that the proposals be more than vague hand-waves of the "too much misogyny not enough ethics" variety, "why aren't we citing Breitbart more?", and so on. If the proposals do not achieve WP:CONSENSUS by ~Nov 6th, then the proposals shall be considered failed, the tag removed, and we can continue on with normal editing. Tarc (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Last time I checked there was unnecessarily loaded language in the article, it needs to be checked before it's removed. Halfhat (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Then make your case as to why the alleged "loaded language" is so dire that we must alert the general readership to the matter. At any given movement, there are tens of thousands of articles that exist in a state of non-perfection, there are always things to update, issues to address, matters to fix. A tiny, tiny percentage of those are actually slapped with big reader tags. Tarc (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is it encourages someone to go to one side. It's not just non-perfection, it's bias. It makes the article appear to support one view, as a trusted source of factual information this is a big issue, especially when covering an ongoing controversy. Halfhat (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is you haven't done anything to demonstrate bias, you've just claimed it exists. Demonstrate that there is an opinion or perspective being given undue weight, or find well-sourced information to add to 'balance' that supposed bias. Because as it is the closest we've had to an honest justification for the 'bias' tag has been that it's not fair that the majority of sources are so terribly biased against gamergate. Per our policies, that's not actually a problem: if we're discussing the issue the way the sources do and observing WP:WEIGHT wrt minority views, we're fine so far as WP:NPOV is concerned. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You ask me why it'd be a problem, I explain it then you rant about how I haven't shown there is a problem. I was explaining why the loaded language is a problem, and like I said, it needs to be checked, because, as far as I know that hasn't happened since the major changes were made. Ofcourse Masem brought up another load of problems. Halfhat (talk) 09:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have pointed out the biased too many times to count; this article preaches the anti-GG with excess quotes and reiterating the harassment, sexism, and misogynic claims beyond what is needed to make the point, under the guise that "there will never be proGG sources to balance this so this is how we will out". It's extremely easy to see by stepping back and putting yourself in the position of a pro GG person that has not engaged in the harassment but feels there are ethical problems in journalism, and then reading this article to determine if this article is even reasonably fair, fully understanding the press is not giving this equal coverage. It's blatantly wrong, and the fact that you and others have refused mediation and even shooed off the ArbCom request means you are not here to compromise and instead push the blatantly biased point. --MASEM (t) 02:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Specific example: The base work "misog" (misogyny, misogynistic, etc.) is used 36 times on the current page, 8 of them unavoidable in reference sourcing titles. Clearly it has to come up in a few places discussing how the press spoke to their opinion of the attacks, so I can see another 6-8 times as necessary for the narrative . But that still leaves at least 16 repeats of a very negative word just because of the claim that there's no sourcing from the proGG side to counter the claim. "Harassment" is used 49 times, with only 4 times unavoidable in the reference titles. (Granted, the harassment stuff is necessary as a reference term to what happened but there's still an awful lot of extra uses). There is a POV problem with this article that is not supported by WP's policy on being neutral in this type of debate. --MASEM (t) 02:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Given the sources, that seems like due weight. If we are speaking about what RS say, that it's appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Due weight does not mean counting sourcing and then saying our ratio should be at that number; it's how much each viewpoint is given in sources, and it is not the case that the proGG is being ignored to a point we can bias the article and treat the proGG side as FRINGEy. The balance is way off when considering what the articles are still saying. --MASEM (t) 02:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The misogyny and harassment are essentially the only sourceable aspect of this event. There is next to nothing written about gamergate by reliable sources that does not focus primarily or exclusively on its efforts to silence people, mainly women, who have opinions its members don't like. The quotes, as has been pointed out, are the result of endless nitpicking about wording from numerous pro-gamergate pov warriors that have forced to put useful, relevant, cited information in a source's voice instead of in Wikipedia's. It's a symptom of bias, yes, but not the bias you're claiming. I'm sure that for a hypothetical 'non-harassing pro-Gamergater' this article seems 'unfair,' but the same hypothetical person will likely think that media coverage of the issue is 'unfair.' That doesn't change the fact that we have to represent this issue the way our sources do. The 'non-harassing pro-GGer' perspective is not a 'neutral' one, but a heavily biased one, so imagining the article from their perspective is not helpful.

For the record, the mediation requests were denied because there was no evidence of a real, actionable dispute. The editors who created those requests had not shown any good faith efforts to resolve the dispute beyond vague and unhelpful whinging on this talk page that the article is biased. And it was in fact Arbcom who "shood off" the arbcom request. - TaraInDC (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

"The misogyny and harassment are essentially the only sourceable aspect of this event." is burying your head in the sand to anything that might challenge the sanctity of the antiGG side. The journalists have admitted there are ethic issues, they want to talk about them. We can source that. We can source other reasons why gamers are update. The harassment stuff is unavoiding and key to explain the history of events and response, no doubt, but stop pretending that is the only thing that can be talked about. Too many editors show zero care for people on the proGG as human beings and simply are assuming they are trolls; some might but certainly not all. And the reason medication failed was that core players refused to participate, which is a core part of mediation. Next step is ArbCom, which you cannot avoid participation in (assuming the case is taken) --MASEM (t) 02:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Journalists acknowledge there are issues with ethics but they pre-date Gamergate and Gamergate has not gone after them. They have not criticized anything remotely resembling what happened to Jeff Gerstmann. They have not remotely criticized anything resembling Doritosgate. They have spent all of their energy harassing people who may or may not have donated to independent game developers' crowdfunding campaigns or people who were roommates and may have talked about a game. They have been going "Haha we're making these people lose all their advertisement money and now they're bad mouthing their advertisers good job journalists" when journalists shouldn't give a shit about their advertisers. They have been going "We don't care about the story just tell us if it's fun". That's all anyone can determine about the "ethics in journalism" which is still a vague attack on women due to the fact that it's only the women devs and journalists that they're haranguing. We can never "balance" this article to not be against Gamergate because Gamergate has the worst PR there can be. They are being considered by the SPLC as a hate movement. We will never satisfy the Gamergate supporters on this page because we cannot, as a neutrally written encyclopedia that is verified by reliable sources, cannot give undue weight to content that we cannot verify in said reliable sources.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There are several things we can go into - not into great depth - but that do deal with present GG concerns on ethics. An example is that GGs want more objective reviews, which yes, mainstream sources have pointed out this logical fallacy and that you can't review games like you would a car or other utility object. But that's an ethics issue that can be discussed. The trend of "notgames" is another (eg DQ and Gone Home), which again has been countered with just that recent NYTimes opinion piece. There's others like this. You have to take off the blinders that classify all proGGs as those doing the harassing and realize we can build, albeit thin, discussion of what GG is looking for. If, based on what I've read from the KIA Reddit thread, that they are happy with the state of the es.wiki version of Gamergate, which is basically ours but lacking all the quotes and at least giving them a few more sentences to justify their points, then we should be able to do that too. --MASEM (t) 03:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those are examples of the vague and ultimately useless things that gamergate claims to want. But as sources note, they are vague, unactionable claims, and are also given far less attention even by the movement itself than the movement's other, less respecable aims: in other words, if gamergate spends less time talking about ethics than it spends telling everyone it's about ethics, and less time doing either than it does harrassing women, then reliable sources are going to note that, and so must we.

But, regardless, saying you have changes you think should be made and that until they're made the tag must remain isn't helpful. Start doing something - actually providing sources and writing text rather than citing vague 'examples' of things you think should be done - or stop complaining about neutrality. We're not going to keep the tag in place until someone else carries out the desires of the editors who think it should remain. Anyone who is not actively working on specific changes to this article to correct what they say is bias has no place demanding that the tag remain. -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I know I could go in and make edits to remove quotes and fix other things that are excess antiGG propaganda, but 1) everyone editing this article needs to be aware that putting too much antiGG quotes and position statements is a POV issue so that we don't have to come back and re-edit to bring it back, and so that we're all working on the same narrative (given the perchance for certain editors to revert without understanding the bias issue) and 2) things are still changing in the GG situation that I don't know how best we should write the "analysis" part of the narrative that I would not want to touch anything in those areas unless there's clear placement for the information. --MASEM (t) 04:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The only reason "antiGG quotes" are prevalent is because the "proGG" editors have fought tooth and nail to ensure that every single statement by any single journalist is attributed to that journalist and not treated like any actual statement on any other topic. And what could be possibly changing in GG?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely false. The excessive quotes are added by you and the antiGG-slanted editors without any impulse needed from the proGG side. There are a few quotes in the main narrative that is necessary to assert facts (the Quinn/Grayson stuff) but the bulk of quotes added beyond that is quotefarming to villainize the proGG side as much as possible. --MASEM (t) 04:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Because we have to pussyfoot around everything we add to make sure that we don't piss off people.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Tarc starts by dictating terms, which he is in no position to carry out, and then suggests we need consensus on there being POV issues when the reality is a lack of consensus on NPOV is what really matters in this instance. I can say that the recent spate of editing since the page got unlocked leaves little room for removing the tag. Ryulong and Baranof in a series of nonsensical edits have seen fit to slant this article so far towards their own POV that it is now just one giant hit piece masquerading as an encyclopedia article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Is that because I added a quote from Chris Kluwe? Everyone external to this dispute is seeing that the "bias" does not exist, or rather the "bias" is simply how due weight turns the pro-GG POV into a minority view.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I know I could go in and make edits to remove quotes and fix other things that are excess antiGG propaganda, but Why make constructive suggestions when you can just complain, right? If you don't attempt to prove that the supposed bias exists instead of just claiming over and over that it does, nobody can ever prove that your arguments don't hold water! If you're not interested in actually explaining exactly what your problem is and trying to fix it then there's no point in you saying anything at all. Starting an RFC to try to establish consensus that there's 'bias' in the article when you have not lifted a finger to show us the bias or explain how you'd like it to be remedied is nothing but dramamongering. Getting a lot of people with little Wikipedia experience outside of this article to agree with your claims that the article is biased is not going to keep this article tagged when you haven't even deigned to make any suggestions. Stop wringing your hands about how the article is biased and somebody should do something and actually do something. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I've talked and demonstrated specific elements with the bias plenty of times, you've chosen to ignore these arguments and claim there's no bias on those changes. And because this article is under sanctions, instead of getting into edit wars over changes (which I am 99% certain would be reverted), starting an RFC to get wider input (given that all other means to get dispute resolution have been rejected by those that claim there is no bias) is the least disruptive way to determine if there's consensus that there's a problems. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No you haven't. You've said there are 'too many quotes,' that we're 'piling on' by observing WP:WEIGHT, and that because there is very little in the way of 'pro-GG' sources to choose from we must limit our use of 'anti-GG' sources (that is, reliable, mainstream sources that have the audacity to call a spade a spade). Those aren't specifics. Those are generalities. What you have done for the most part is start beating your 'piling on!' drum in completely unrelated discussions, dragging them off course but never actually making any concrete suggestions that can be discussed or countered. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

BS, those are very specific issues (and I did in fact point to specific quotes and additions in some cases). You clearly have no interest in trying to work towards consensus here. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Where did you make specific suggestions for changes to the article? -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

In a previous discussion (which you criticized me for the same lack of specificity) I pointed out at least one quote that was a problem. When other edits proceeded to add other quotes or changes that were a problem I called those out here in question. But my point has been that it's not just one or two, it's throughout the article, and clearly in the additions since the removal of protection, that needs to be considered as a whole, since removing some quote affects the structure of the article too. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

When called on your persistent failure to provide specific suggestions you pointed out one bloody quote. Yes, truly you have worked tirelessly to resolve this dispute. The fact remains that you have called this article biased a lot, frequently in unrelated discussions with very little effort to justify those claims, let alone rectify them. Your signal to noise ratio is abysmal: lots of complaints and next to no constructive suggestions. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Disagree on taking out the tag, if anything the article gets more POV by the hour. I expect by November 6th the article opening with something like "GamerGate is a bunch of manchildren who are literally worst than ISIS" Loganmac (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

vague statements, not found in source

games centering on social issues grew in popularity, and some of these were seen by elements of the hardcore gaming community as not fitting their definition of games
Which elements of the hardcore gaming community, and who said it? The vox source statement about the gaming community was: "the community is already primed to think that any discussion of games in a sociopolitical context means that talk of banning them isn't far behind." Statement and source do not match.

The growth of the audience for video games and an increasing perception of their potential as an art form prompted gaming outlets to move towards cultural criticism of the games
Vox do not mention cultural criticism of the games. They do talk about cultural journalist, with the statement "if a cultural journalist writes about a game or movie or book, the implicit assumption is that this is worth you knowing about on some level". Statement and source do not match.

A large number of women whose primary gaming interests did not conform to those of the male-oriented gamer identity, and who began to question some of the assumptions and tropes that were historically used by game developers.
This is an implied historical perspective around gamer identity, but without source. Who said that, and where? The time article states that "Over the last few weeks, identity tensions have divided fans online in strange, ugly episodes rooted in how writers discuss games and who is allowed to participate." That is the historical perspective about the last weeks. Statement and source do not match.

In light of the growing female audience for games, and growing female representation in the gaming industry, outlets became increasingly interested in detailing issues of gender representation in video games
As a reader, I wonder whom those outlets are or who's analysis it is. Neither vox, latimes or times can tell me when this "increasingly interested" started, or if it stated.

In all, sourceless statement that should be removed or have sources to support them. Instead they were reintroduced, and thus posted here for further discussion. Unsourced statements are normally a non-issue for articles with this many editors, but I guess the tone here should have scared me away from looking at it. Belorn (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

As a comment, most of these are sourcable points from earlier sources in the GG commentary. They are not fully contentious (if you follow video games, these are obvious trends), but we do need better sourcing for them if they aren't in the sources attached, but I do believe all those sources exist. --MASEM (t) 04:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If they "obviously" exist, someone should ad it. The article is long enough that we don't need to have additional sourceless statements that are broad and vague. I removed the content for this very purpose and got reverted. Wikipedia:Verifiability puts the burden to demonstrate verifiability with the editor who adds or restores material. As such, please demonstrate verifiability. Belorn (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The contested material Belorn has been removing is indeed in the sources that he keeps removing along with the text in question. Just because it is not spelled out identically as we do on the article does not mean that the material is not supported.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

please demonstrate verifiability. Pull quote or give line number. Just because you believe they are "in there" doesn't make it so. Belorn (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying you haven't actually looked at the sources? Artw (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No, how can I pull quotation from the articles without looking at them?Belorn (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong claimed they were supported in the last paragraph of vox and times, so I will (given copyright allows it) pull them here for illustration:

So, in essence, #GamerGate has "won," superficially, but it can never really win. The movement is probably too big now to accomplish all of its goals, much less concretely articulate them. - Vox

As video games unshackle from old constraints, traditional fans double down on keeping the treehouse sacrosanct. The tension between “games as product” and “games as culture” is visible within these online controversies as everyone invested in the industry watches to see which will “win”. Someone should tell the internet conspiracy theorists they can relax — we’ll absolutely, definitely have both. - time.com

Those do not support any of the 4 cited statements above. I don't know why you think it does, and start question good-faith here.Belorn (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong was pointing you at the end of the paragraph where the citations were sitting, not the last paragraph of those articles. Artw (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Artw is right. I don't know how "In Vox and Time at the end of the entire paragraph" means "its in the last paragraph at Vox and Time". This is ridiculous Belorn. Read the whole pieces instead of just going "give me proof" because editors before you have used those sources as the proof necessary.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks artw. I was asking Ryulong where in the article the statements were directly supported, and the reply was "In Vox and Time at the end of the entire paragraph". I see now that the reply was not actually an answer to the question, which is why the confusion happened. I am still waiting to hear where in the article (line, quote or paragraph) that directly support each of the above 4 statements. If the answer is "the whole articles", then please explain how both articles directly support each of the 4 statements. If Ryulong has read the articles he want to use, he should be able to explain how they directly support the statements. Belorn (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you actually read the articles, beyond the last paragraphs, and found them lacking in that regard? Artw (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, otherwise I would not have stated that none of the 4 statements above can be found supported in either of the articles. Since there is now 2 editors stating that the articles strongly support the 4 statements, could either of you (or anyone else) please explain how the articles directly support the statements. Belorn (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a relevant question, time wasting questions and excessive nitpicking being a bit of a recurring theme here.

Here's some quotes form the "can games be art" section of the

And, really, a big part of this debate is about how games are allowed to be art. The indie game scene stretches the definition of games in an industry dominated by massive action blockbusters. Depression Quest and Gone Home keep coming up in this debate because both are, for the most part, devoid of traditional gameplay mechanics. They're less about getting you through a gameplay narrative and more about making you have a particular experience. They're about personal, artistic expression more than a carefully controlled story that apes big-budget movies.

"In the past, there was this fictional conception that a reviewer could apply an ‘objective' score to a video game, untainted by any personal bias. Given that games are highly subjective, experiential things, and not mobile phones, this idea is a bit silly to begin with," Alexander said. "But then you add into the mix that the historical model of games coverage involved bargains struck between marketing departments at big games companies and the advertising departments of niche games magazines, and it's stunning that the biggest ‘ethical concerns' our audience has ever raised come from an environment where people now do personal, creative writing about independent games."

The film industry is a good comparison point here. That's a world where there are both huge blockbusters and smaller, more intimate films that take chances with the form. Video games are getting there, too. This is, ultimately, just a part of that evolution. And as long as that evolution continues, there will be this sort of fractious debate. Because what #GamerGate is all about isn't who is or isn't a gamer, or what role the press should play. It's about what games should be and who they should be for. And that's worth a real discussion, not just a hashtag.

Possibly you skimmed over that? Artw (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

4 statements, let see if that quote directly support each of them.

1. '"games centering on social issues grew in popularity" is supported by "Depression Quest and Gone Home keep coming up in this debate because both are, for the most part, devoid of traditional gameplay mechanics. "?
2. '"The growth of the audience prompted gaming outlets to move towards cultural criticism" is supported by "In the past, there was this fictional conception that a reviewer could apply an ‘objective' score to a video game, untainted by any personal bias. "?
3. male-oriented gamer identity. Honestly, no idea what that is supposed to be supported by. A hint please?
4. outlets became increasingly interested in detailing issues of gender representation in video games. Again, no clue how that is directly supported by any of that. Some implied statement by related aspect of movies? Belorn (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Imagine my suprise that you turn out to be a timewaster with reading comprehension issues. Go do your own homework. Artw (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. If your inability to demonstrate how the sources support the claims is causing you to make derogatory comments about other editors, I suggest trying harder. Belorn (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have asked WP:ORN for help in reading the sources and see if a person outside this discussion can see the statements as directly supported by the two cited articles. If the editors who want to include the statements refuses to explain in what way the cited articles directly support the statements, maybe someone at the noticeboard will. Belorn (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Your challenges have been challenged. What is your real goal here?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

My goal is to have statements which is supported by sources. For example, the article claim that games centering on social issues has grew in popularity, and I would like to know who claims it and what data they are using to support it. As a reader, that would interest me, as gaming trends is interesting. I would also like to know in what way gaming outlets has moved towards cultural criticism. Gaming outlets was talking about cultural criticism like game violence back in the mid 1990, and if there has been a recent change towards more focused efforts, then I would like to know whom claims it and what data they are using to support it. Lastly, Wikipedia makes the claim that gamer identity is male-oriented. I would like to know what sources is used to support it. It is a bit disturbing that wanting to know who makes what claim (ie, verifiability) is seem as time wasting for wikipedia editors. What is your real goal here Ryulong by refusing to explain in what way the cited articles directly support the statements?Belorn (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Artw has shown you what was said. The Devil's Advocate challenged your challenging of the text as well. And it doesn't matter if you dislike the subject. The content is found in the sources. It's not my job to point that out to you because you didn't feel like reading it beyond trying to find anything that closely resembled what had been written instead of a completely different set of text with the same concept.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If you do not feel like reading the article so can figure it out for yourself, I can not make you. The content is not found in the sources. The concept from the 4 statement is not there, nor has you tried to show it. Artw pulled a few quotes, which implied vaguely about the subject of 2 statements and had nothing about the remaining 2. Belorn (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Except I'm not the one who added it. Multiple editors reverted you as they did not disagree with your assertion that the content was not sourced, and it wasn't just me. The content is variously sourced throughout the page and those general sources discuss the aspects, just not in the way you think is absent. And if you really have issues, maybe you should raise them up with The Devil's Advocate who was the original author of the section.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material~as per WP:V.Belorn (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that you're looking for pull quotes, but these statements are general summaries of the articles.

Statements 1 and 2 are related. Vox compares the games industry with the film industry: in the evolving games industry, smaller games developers can take chances on games like Gone Home and Depression Quest, games that both emphasize social issues (for example, “the experience of having depression”) and avoid “traditional gameplay mechanics”, to the point where they may be considered “Walking Novels” or “Interactive Novels” but which Vox feels are nevertheless still considered games. But there is pushback “that games like Depression Quest and Gone Home are called 'games' in the first place”. Vox states that games can be a “personal, artistic expression” which requires subjective review as one does with art.

Statements 3 and 4 are related. Time looks at the games industry historically, discussing how the industry was into “sell[ing] high-end hardware to young men” and their “young male demographic”, but that better and easier tools led to a “rapidly maturing, surprisingly diverse medium”, which changed “the way games journalists parse all this for their readers”, including “[p]rominent feminist critique”. On these points, the Vox article is more about the current state of the industry, that game media are “covering issues of female representation in games”, calling out specific criticisms such as “harmful tropes”, and “engag[ing] with LGBT issues”.

I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It does, thanks. Vox brings two examples of game to talk about such games. To go from there and state that "social issues grew in popularity" seems to me a bit of a stretch since two data points do not make a trend (statistically speaking).

The time quote is "The games that have historically enjoyed the biggest budgets and the highest returns are Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, Halo and their ilk. Aimed largely at that young male demographic", which talk about those specific games targeted demographic. From there we extrapolate that the whole gamer-identity is male. It is a bit of a stretch, especially given that the Forbes articles from kain described "white, male nerds with deep-seeded fears of both reality and women" as a negative gamer stereotype which only describe a small minority of those who self-identify as gamer. I would add that as a counter weight if I thought there was a chance that it would ever get pass the gatekeepers. Belorn (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right that Vox specifically calls out only Depression Quest and Gone Home, but that source also includes a screenshot of Fez and refers to an "indie game scene" focusing on more personal games. Time also lists a number of games with "rich, touchable experiences" and "oddly intimate interactions" and states that "new digital business models help game companies endure". To me, that indicates a trend of more games with sustainable business models. Personally, I would have preferred if the articles had included concise pullout quotes—especially because they're important points—but I suppose that's why I write for Wikipedia instead of Time. And I wouldn't say that our use of "male-oriented gamer identity" implies that men are the only gaming demographic—"growing female audience" suggests that women were there all along?, as we know—but men were the money demographic. Which is changing, so games journalism must "parse" their articles for the more "diverse" demographics. Woodroar (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate for non-gamers

If you can get the article in the vicinity of this one, it will be a good article. If you can't, it will be a poor article. Willhesucceed (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia can't provide an article that reads like that, because that article is an opinion piece, and is not attempting to provide a neutral point of view, but the author's point of view. It is a good opinion piece, but a Wikipedia article can't be an opinion piece. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Can an article be too biased in favor of near-universal sourcing of one side of an issue? (Gamergate controversy)

Is it possible that in an article about a two-sided issue where one side has received the majority of the positive coverage to be too biased in favor of that larger coverage?

Statement

Gamergate itself is highly controversial, and one of the issues with covering it is that one side (pro- Gamergate, or proGG) is from numerous anonymous users without any clear leadership, has had some members engage in harassment attacks against women (which the media frowns on), and has argued the media itself is biased. The limited sourcing that supports proGG typically are at the weak end, and/or fail our normal reliable sources policies. As such, the near unanimity of reliable sources paint the story in favor of the anti Gamergate/antiGG side and do not give a lot of equal coverage to the proGG side. This is not in doubt, and we are very clear that this article can never be 50/50 unbiased between the two sides. It is also very clear that the article is going to have to talk about the media's highly critical response to the harassment (eg. calling proGG as sexism and misogynistic) as this is part of the actual narrative as opposed to analysis (as proGG's responded to these charges with various actions). So we are, for some parts, going to have statements that we attribute to the mainstream media that are critical of that side.

This of course has brought in a number of SPAs and IP editors, influenced by offsite posts, to try to point out the bias in this article and to try to make it more proGG friendly. We have extensively pointed out we cannot flip the narrative that far around because the mainstream media has not treated the story like that. The proGG has had some favorable or detailed coverage, as to avoid it being a FRINGE viewpoint, but again, having 50/50 in this article is completely impossible by our sourcing and core content policies.

That said, I have argued that while we cannot give proGG any more coverage, we are instead giving the antiGG side far too much coverage, to the point of being preachy on how "right" the antiGG side is, and how bad the proGG side is. This is evidenced by certain phrasing, excessive use of the negative words "harassment" and "misogyny" (and forms thereof), and overuse of near-full quotes from antiGG sources when they are not needed for explaining the key parts of the narrative. Technically this all fits within our sourcing and content policies, but there's something wrong when it can be argued "well, there's no proGG sources, but there's plenty of antiGG sources, so lets keep adding those". This has cleared been a fact resonated in the main proGG offsite forums that are extremely disappointed with this article in how it paints them. (Please note: one has to take care in considering these offsite opinions as they range all over the spectrum, but there are people that are very coherent that have expressed very valid concerns on how bad the bias seems on this article). I have tried to point out that we should be clinically/detached neutral, which means we should not be repeating the praising that the antiGG side and berating the proGG side. The counterargument that has been used here by those that this there is no bias is that UNDUE/WEIGHT supports this approach, since the near-majority of sources are in that direction.

The question I pose here is two fold: 1) Even considering WP:WEIGHT/WP:UNDUE, when one side of a debate is overwhelming positively covered by sources and the other side is not, is it possible to push the widely-covered side too much to create bias in the opposite direction? 2) Does this article on GamerGate demonstrate this type of bias? Note that previous DR attempts have been made but rejected, and while the next step might be ArbCom, this feels more a content dispute and we have not tried a more global RFC. This will be posted to CENT and VPP, and will be posted to WT:VG, but any other projects that are related should be notified too.

(A note to any SPA/IP that might find their way here, please be aware this is not a vote but a discussion towards consensus, and input from relatively new users will typically be ignored if they don't offer policy-based reasons) --MASEM (t) 05:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a false presentation. There are NOT "two sides". There are thousands of anonymous, pseudo - anonymous, non-notable and/or astroturf accounts using the term "gamergate" in about a bajillion different ways to refer to their own personal interpretation and grievances. You cannot have "two sides" about an issue when everyone is using their own definition of the issue. Reliable sources in the media have covered the uses and applications of the term that they have found note worthy - essentially the use of the term as a cover for harassment of women.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what exactly your claim is. If there is not a proGG side, then why are there thousands of people identifying themselves as such? The matter of what proGG stands for is irrelevant to whether it actually exists. What else would you call this group of people who, while (according to your claim) having no consensus over what they stand for, nonetheless define themselves as proGG or an equivalent term. What would you call them? And as you yourself say, if thousands of people identify themselves with a proGG side, then that would, tautologically, make them 'supporters of Gamersgate'. Yet, according to you, they should not be referred to this way? Why? Omegastar (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• I am proZIGGER and I am for X
• I am proZIGGER and I am for Y
• I am proZIGGER and I am for Y but not X
• I am proZIGGER and I am for Z but not X and not Y
• I am antiZIGGER and I am against Y
• I am proZIGGER and I am for W but not Z
• I am proZIGGER and I we dont believe in W

Now tell me what a proZigger is? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

A proZIGGER. Also, you did not answer my question. Omegastar (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Use common sense. There is definitely two sides here, that's clear by the sources, but the scope of the "proGG" side is vague, but they do exist, it's not a non-entity. --MASEM (t) 00:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If you insist, yes, there is a progameragate "side", the one covered by reliable sources is the side that sends death threats to women. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That's clearly not exclusively how the proGG side is described in the majority of sources, and it is because the way some editors want this article to take that attitude and ignore the other facets of the proGG argument is why this RFC exists. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No true gamergater is going to be a wuss and talk about "ethics" when we can drive women from their homes. In an amorphous and chaotic movement with no defined leaders, goals, or even principles, you cannot simply choose a particular subset of the voices that you wish and claim that they are the representatives of some sort of "pro" "side". The media has reviewed and rejected, multiple times, the vague, wide-ranging, contradictory and false content of gamergate tweets and what is left as a coherent "side" is misogynistic terrorism. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You contradict yourself. Is GamersGate 'amorphous and chaotic'? Or 'coherent'. You make both claims. If GamersGate is amorphous and chaotic, how can it be defined as predominantly misogynistic or terrorist? And if GamersGate is misogynistic and terrorist, why are there so many people, who identify themselves as supporters of GamerGate, disputing the claims of misoginy and terrorism?Omegastar (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I dont contradict myself, I said after you take away the fluff that "what is left as a coherent "side" is misogynistic terrorism." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Q1: Can an article become too biased in the favor of the side with the near-majority of sources?

(Leave and sign replies, perhaps "Yes", "No", or other clarification.)

• Yes. No matter how overwhelming the preponderance of a viewpoint expressed in reliable sources, Wikipedia can become biased in favor of it - because Wikipedia doesn't take viewpoints, only summarizes them. Some games have received near-unanimous critical acclaim, and whether I agree with this (e.g. BioShock Infinite, Final Fantasy VII) or not (e.g. EarthBound, Majora's Mask), Wikipedia is not allowed to state "The game was good". In my eyes, the only situation in which it's appropriate simply to phrase the majority of sources' statements as objective truths is one that wouldn't normally generate controversy by doing so: when they're factual and uncontroversial in nature. The very existence of these sources damns this possibility, because they illustrate that not only does an opposition to their views (i.e. pro-Gamergate) exist; it's worth writing about. TL;DR: Yes, if the content in question is opinions, because Wikipedia doesn't espouse opinions. Tezero (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Not sure the term "bias" is useful here, because bias relative to what? If anything, this bias argument implies an institutionalized unfairness, that WP is leaving something out, or that WP is unfair for only using "reliable sources" since the perspectives needed are not reiterated in such sources. Regardless of what we lose as a culture for omitting minority perspectives for want of sourcing, WP is successful by its own standards if it successfully emulates the character of the breadth of sources on a topic. What we're really discussing is weight, and if you use that term, this question becomes tautological: an article cannot be unduly weighted if it is giving the perspectives on a topic due weight (proportional to their coverage). *** From everything I've read on GG, I think the idea of two equal "sides" is mistaken—on WP, there is the corpus of every reliable article written on a topic, and from that set we can choose a subset to highlight in an article. If WP deliberately suppressed representation for a commonly held idea within that subset, sure, that would count as slant. If the coverage does not take pains to present this other "side", by our own weight and notability definitions, those unvetted perspectives are not some counterweighted equal, but a minority report with respect to the overall topic. Given the body of work published on GG, the sources used in the article should reflect the overall magnitude of coverage given to each claim/idea and not artificially enhanced in the name of truth. The idea of presenting any "controversy" article as equally weighted sides makes no sense—if sources cover some perspectives more than others, the article should reflect that proportionality such that its "bias" is identical to the corpus of source material (though "bias" is the wrong term). The premise of this question is flawed czar ♔ 06:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes - Wikipedia should only summarize existing sources, but even if the preponderance of existing source swing towards a specific majority viewpoint, there's a lot of editorial discretion that goes into how the actual article is worded. You can take 5 glowing video game reviews and use them to write a section that talks about how reviewers said a lot of positive things about a game, or use them to talk about how the game is the best thing since sliced bread- it's all in how you write it. Also, please note that Tezero's opinion is completely invalid, since he thinks EarthBound isn't as good as everyone else says it is. --PresN 06:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes it obviously can as NPOV concerns questions of weight and tone that are not negated by having the majority of sources backing your position. Generally, we would want the best and most neutral sources to be given high priority. Those sources that avoid overly opinionated language or make contentious claims that are not clearly provable should be given a low priority.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes An opinion being so widely shared doesn't make it a fact. Halfhat (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• I'm really lost on how you can asnwer this question with yes or no. Are we being asked if artcles are permitted to become biased if the sources are one-sided, or are we being asked if articles can be too biased if the sources only follow one side? I'm inclined to say yes to the former and and no to the latter, but the wording is a bit too ambiguous for a clear response. Looking above, Halfhat and TDA seems to be responding to the second interpretation of the question, while Tezero and PresN seem to be responding to the first interpretation. What was the intent? - Bilby (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• This is a ridiculous question, and I cannot even understand why this is being entertained as a serious discussion. If you want to discuss wikipedia policy take it somewhere relevant to wikipedia policy, as it stands the article will reflect the weight of sources. Anything else is irrelevant. As per Bilby. Koncorde (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. If DUE policy conflicts with NOTADVOCATE, then the article should be rewritten in a more neutral and dispassionate form. Belorn (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• This question is Pointless and off topic. There's no use in hypotheticals when there's a concrete issue to discuss, and asking a softball like this is inappropriate. -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• I agree this is not a proper RFC question, it's basically "should WP:UNDUE exist?" only with loaded phrasing. Artw (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Er, no, and I'm having a hard time believing that this was actually a serious question. Editors do not get to second-guess reliable sources...especially venerable ones with a history of editorial discretion and control. "The sources all say X, but we can't got get about Y just because not as many are talking about Y". Well guess what? YES WE DAMN WELL CAN. The predominant, mainstream point-of-view of;
  • Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories == the birth certificate is real, the non-believers are fringe conspirators
  • Global warming == it does exist, human activity has caused it to increase over time
  • Apollo 11 == they landed on the moon
  • September 11 attacks == 19 hijackers crashes 4 planes at the behest of bin Laden. Not Jews, not George W. Bush.
• Once the hea dies down, Gamergate controversy will follow suit, where the primary narrative will be the misogynist harassment of women, and "but ethics" will be the conter-claim, though not given even remotely the same weight as the primary. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• No per WP:UNDUE: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources (emphasis mine). At the end of the day, Wikipedia can only summarize the existing reliable sources. Attempting to present "both sides" of a controversy where nearly all of the reliable sources support one side would be detrimental to Wikipedia (just imagine what the articles listed by Tarc would look like if we attempted this). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• No. Wikipedia articles reflect what the reliable sources say. If the majority of reliable sources say X, then the article says X. Anything else is WP:UNDUE. In other words, Wikipedia articles must give each viewpoint the same prominence, words, and weight that it receives in reliable sources - that is what it means for an article to be neutral. In fact, giving one side more weight than it's given in reliable sources would make the article biased. Ca2james (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Non starter. Per policy, No. WP:UNDUE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. WP:UNDUE works both ways. If the minority viewpoint is dismissed or misrepresented then bias will result per a WP:NPOV violation. Muscat Hoe (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• For me, this question largely comes down to WP:RGW. Perhaps the sources we have available to work with are skewed against some higher truth, but it isn't Wikipedia's proper role to get ahead of the reliable source material, because that leaves us depending upon editor opinions if we want to base content on poorly sourced material in order to provide "balance". Secondary sources count much more than anonymous postings in this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. Isn't this simple logic? Multiple users who argue 'No' above me base their opinion on Wikipedia's stance on reliable sources, yet Masem's statement is not about reliable sources. Masem's statement is about the writing of the article itself. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what the reliable sources say, but it is the editors who actually put this into the words that form the article. And in doing so, editors might, consciously or unconsciously, introduce bias into an article. Omegastar (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• No This is an argument that has been seen repeatedly at topics such as Evolution, Climate change, Scientology, AltMed etc. where it has been consistently and often forcefully (including at ArbCom) rejected. The question is misleading anwyay because we're not talking about a near-majority (that would be a minority, surely?) of sources in this or any of those other cases; we're talking about an overwhelming preponderence of sources. CIreland (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• No. When all viewpoints receive appropriate weight according to their weight in the reliable sources, there's no neutrality issue.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• I don't really see the point of the question. A Wikipedia article can become almost everything, including the approximation of a thousand monkeys banging on typewriters if nobody watchlists it and reverts vandalism. But to the extent that the submitter asks whether it is problematic that if all reliable sources support one side of a controversy, our article does too, then the answer is no: that's what's supposed to happen per WP:NPOV.  Sandstein  15:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. I've brought it up before, but just because something is cast in a universally negative light doesn't mean an article isn't biased when the article makes an effort to cast that thing in a bad light. Numerous articles about controversial subjects or figures describe their subjects in a passive tone, without using wording that implies a moral judgement. An article can become biased when it seeks to express the moral judgements of a topic as the primary goal of the article. YellowSandals (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, it can. This is what WP:UNDUE does: the article takes the direction of the majority of reliable sources (whether clickbait news stories from major networks are reliable is a whole other discussion altogether). This is the definition bias, but it's generally deemed to be benign enough to pass as neutral. On highly controversial and divisive topics, however—which I'd say the ones mentioned by Tarc aren't—, this can be a problem. ansh666 03:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• See this quote from 2012

“ The problem with your analogy is that on a sports team the two ides are equal, in that both take the field with the same opportunities to advance, score, and win. Here, the two sides are not equal. We have a word that is widely used to describe a particular prejudicial belief, and we have a tiny handful of people off to one side who don't like it. WP:NPOV doesn't mean "everyone gets a seat at the table", it means "everyone of significance gets a seat at the table". If you're so fond of analogies...we're at the main Thanksgiving table in the dining room, while you're at the kids' fold-out table next to the kitchen. ” — Tarc (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

--Guerillero | My Talk 17:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• No It's not our responsibility as editors to portray something as more of a balanced issue than it is according to the sources. It would be a false move to manipulate a counterbalance on the article just because it would be in the interests of PR for the movement. WP articles are not intended to be soapboxes or pro/con debate sessions. If the movement is portrayed in an unflattering light in the media and by all or nearly-all RS, then perhaps the movement should be working at shifting people's perspectives elsewhere, not using this page in order to engage in whitewashing. Seriouslyonlyusernameleft (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• No? I'm not sure what this section is attempting to do. Protonk (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Dubious. You're basically saying there's a problem with Reliable Source coverage. Even assuming that's true, that's not something we can fix. Wikipedia is not the place to Right_Great_Wrongs. We need to follow the sources. Alsee (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Q2: Is the current Gamergate article too biased in this manner?

(Leave and sign replies, perhaps "Yes", "No", or other clarification.)

• No — As per the due weight policy, we must give due weight to the preponderant viewpoint in reliable sources. This means that if we are going to even *slightly* mention the various claims made by GamerGate, we must make clear that they are rejected by the weight of reliable sources and those rejections will necessarily be given more weight than the claims themselves. This is particularly important given that a large number of GamerGate's claims make negative statements or inferences about living people that have been discredited or flatly disproven. We have to write the article based upon the reliable sources we have, not the article that GamerGate supporters want to have. The fact of the matter is that effectively all of GamerGate's notoriety or "notability" comes from the harassment campaigns that some of its supporters have carried on. We wouldn't even have an article about GamerGate if it wasn't for the fact that media outlets ranging from MSNBC to The New York Times, The Telegraph to The Pacific Standard have weighed in on the misogynistic harassment which is, at this point, inextricably tied to GamerGate no matter how well-meaning some of its supporters are. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Genuinely perplexed how WP editors can claim to know the true scope (and therefore true appropriate weight) of GG when the RS themselves have no idea. This article has no hope for stability until the retrospective articles are written. Best plan for now is to maintain core WP policies (BLP, V, neutrality, etc.) and to remove bloat by relying nearly exclusively on mainstream media accounts. Leave the sifting and winnowing for professionals. Our job is to present the reliable sources proportionally, not to find the truth. No.  czar ♔ 07:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes as you have, for one example, the woefully undue focus on the Felicia Day incident. This is not simply a question of due weight, though, but also phrasing and structure. It was never very good in this department, but it has only worsened in recent days with a variety of changes such as the removal of the "legitimacy of concerns" section. Many more examples exist, but these are just a couple.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes The amount of quotes on top of adding bias is just flat out poor writing. It's okay to paraphase and leave out unimportant opinions. Halfhat (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes Reading the lede makes me sick, "the movement's unwillingness or inability to control the attacks carried out in its name is generally seen as preventing constructive engagement" The whole page is spouting opinions from anti-GG Retartist (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Gibberish article has been gibberish since it was first created. This has nothing to do with bias, and everything to do with the fact it's an unencyclopedic mess of opinions and self importance now being flooded with more crap. It should always have been an article related to video game culture or journalism, instead it's 90% opinions of harassment. Not bias, just terrible. Koncorde (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes For an article with over 2000 edits with several hundred per day, there is still opinionated sourceless statements made in the wiki-voice. At times like this, editors should be conservative with the use of sources and make sure each statement is fully supported and written in a disinterested and dispassionate form. Belorn (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• No If anything the article gives too much weight to WP:FRINGE opinions as it stands. Artw (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• No. I note that you haven't actually specified in the question a particular 'direction' for the bias, and in fact I'd argue that we are giving too much weight to gamergate's claims that it's about ethics when the sources are at best mentioning that fact in passing and are increasingly taking time to actually debunk that claim, but it's clear you're seeking consensus for your vague claims that the article has anti-gamergate bias so I'll ignore that for the moment. Your argument is, again, uselessly vague. So far as I can tell you have still yet to suggest any changes at all that will rectify this 'bias' you claim exists, even in this RFC: it seems you'd rather just keep using your claim of 'bias' to drag every discussion off course with vague and unactionable arguments. The heavy use of quotes in the article, as has been pointed out again and again, is the result of this article's many POV pushers nitpicking over every blessed word that they think might possibly paint gamergate negatively until we're forced to attribute what should be uncontroversial information to individual sources rather than stating it in Wikipedia's voice. It's a symptom of bias, but it's bias in favor of gamergate. -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• No. Only answering this question as it's the only relevant one. I haven't contributed much to this article but have been following its development. I think it's now in a pretty good state that gives the different opinions about as much weight as is merited by the sources. I don't think it's biased by giving greater representation to the view which is overwhelmingly taken by the reliable sources. If anything, it's arguable (as TarainDC just argued above) that it gives too much representation to the fringe view, although I personally think it's just about alright. There are several other articles on similar controversies to this one, where one 'side' is the mainstream media view, and the other 'side' is a group of largely non-notable Internet commenters and amateurs. We can and should try to give the latter view a fair share of representation, but it's inevitable that our articles will always present a 'bias' in favour of the view taken by the reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• No. Seems by and large like an adequate reflection of what's in the types of sources Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on. Andreas JN466 14:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• No - As with all articles, this one reflects what reliable sources have to say on the matter. Much as birthers were bitterly disappointed that our birth certificate article did not adequately address the nuances of their colorful argument, the "but ethics" crowd here is just going to have to come to grips with the fact that the outside world does not see the issue in the way that they'd prefer. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• No The article is a decently fair and accurate summarization of what the reliable sources have to say. WP:NPOV does not require that we cover both sides of a controversy when the overwhelming majority of sources support one side. To the contrary, it states multiple time that we should not give undue weight in articles. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• No. In describing different sides, the article reflects what reliable sources say and gives each side the weight given by those reliable sources. Ca2james (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Perhaps we may be giving too much weight to the "ostensible" concerns claimed by the gamergaters when all the recent reliable sources are clearly indicating the "ostensible" claims have no validity or basis or meaningful part in the actual controversy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• I'm surprised to see myself saying this, but it's a tentative no from me. The page has seen improvement in qualitative allegations against Gamergaters being presented as opinions rather than uncontestable facts, and I think the representation of the pro-Gamergate side, while not ideal, is sufficient given the paucity of reliable sources agreeing with it. I'm inclined to think the severest remaining problem is a possible unnecessarily severe presentation of the incidents of harassment of celebrities themselves, but even that I don't feel strongly about. I do wish there were more weight afforded to Gamergate's currents of anti-censorship and anti-politics-in-gaming unrelated to Zoe Quinn - as Polygon's Chris Grant said, it's difficult to tease a single, coherent message out of the movement, and this is a strong part of it - but if that isn't covered by enough reliable sources, I don't see where we're going to find the requisite coverage. Tezero (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• No - The current article devotes too much attention to the pro-GG point of view. The content about 'journalistic ethics' is not reflected in mainstream reliable sources and should be removed or reduced substantially. Kaldari (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes A movement targeting journalism is destined to be misrepresented by the media and Wikipedia should be careful of these cases. Loganmac (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  You may want to look at who is actually being targeted: Data analysis of #GG tweets Kaldari (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  You may want to look above at when we were talking about that article. The amount of tweets they gathered between all 6 of the people were less than 5%, and out of the 5%, 90+% were neutral, with the last 10% being positive or negative. So Logan is right. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  Lol that actually just further proves my point, that is the worst use of statistics if it can be called that I've seen. Loganmac (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes The article is simply not constructed nor worded in a neutral manner. Note that I am talking about the wording and the structuring, not the sources. Wikipedia articles are supposed to have an Impartial tone. This article does not have that. Omegastar (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes because we're too often attributing the opinions of sources as fact. Take Sam Biddle's "bully" tweets for example. When the sources claim the tweets were in jest, that's the opinion of the author, yet it was presented as fact in the article. We can only document that the tweets were made, any intention behind why they were made needs to be attributed as someone's opinion. Muscat Hoe (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• No In fact, this article currently inadequately represents the extent of the negative commentary that exists within the top-tier sources. We are over-using second-rate sources to add fringe perspectives in inappropriate juxtaposition to the best sourced material. CIreland (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• No And let me just say that Masem's comment opening this RfC is a huge disappointment to me and my viewpoint of him as an editor, since it's about catering to the fringe rather than being a proper representation of sources and a summary of them, as what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. We do not write creationism or other fringe topics with any sort of catering of the fringe. Period and done. Silverseren^C 14:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• No. If anything, we give too much weight to the claims by gamergaters that the movement is about journalism ethics, considering that the stronger sources typically only even mention them to dismiss them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, most of the video game journalists fully recognize there are ethics issues within their ranks and aren't shy about there being problems. It's just that the specific aspects that proGG has been arguing about that can be determined by reliable sourcing is not any of the major issues that the journalists see as a problem. --14:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs)

So far, the strongest sources discussing this topic (including those outside the small sphere of video game writing) mainly bring up the "but ethics" argument as something Gamergaters say as a cover for the real story, if they bring it up at all.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• I haven't edited Gamergate controversy, but related articles. At first glance, the article is not obviously biased, but perhaps overlong and difficult to read. The only neutrality concern I have is that the lead paragraph makes prominent mention of the campaign's alleged concerns about journalistic ethics, whereas all media articles I've read about the topic (e.g. NYT Oct. 25) are pretty clear that these concerns are merely a facade for the campaign's main focus of misogynist activism and harassment. If this impression of consensus in reliable sources is correct, the article lead should also reflect it.  Sandstein  15:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  Regarding the lead paragraph Sandstein, it has been edit warred over since there were multiple attempts to edit it to make it more in line with the present weighting of the controversy. My major expansion was reverted earlier this morning and constant attempts to give the gamergate side more credence that resulted in this early attempt at compromise and then these expansions that were not met without conflict.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  That's because mainstream media, for lack of a better term, is BS. There's actually three sides here: 1) immature misogynist trolls who nobody likes; 2) feminists (for lack of a better term) and the media, both gaming and mainstream; and 3) the rest of the gamer community, who have been thrown into the ditch alongside group 1 by group 2. (You can guess my affiliation, look at my user page if you need more confirmation; also, I've restrained from commenting on this as much as I can). Much as we wouldn't let an administrator close a discussion in which they have a vested interest, the media shouldn't be reporting on these matters in the way they have - they're WP:INVOLVED. And, even if they aren't, they're trying to stir up a storm for more clicks, and people are falling for it, hook, line, and sinker. But, such is the corporate world, and such is life. ansh666 03:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. This article has not taken a passive tone while describing the controversy. Much of the wording and even the article's structure is designed to cast a moral judgement over the movement being described, based solely on the fact that many secondary sources describe a moral judgement. It is not Wikipedia's perogative to decide right from wrong - Wikipedia should only describe things in the most neutral, direct terms and allow the reader to come to their own conclusions about the motives and intentions of still-living people. YellowSandals (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, per the last two sentences of my comment above. But, I don't think there's any way to fix the problem, so whatever. Cynicism at its finest, right here. ansh666 03:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• No, for the most part. A lot of this nonsense makes more sense if you replace "gamergate" with "people who think the moon landing was faked" when talking about whether or not an article's reliance on reliable sources causes one "side" of a debate to feel under-represented. Protonk (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• No. We need to follow our core policies. It may be reasonable to search the sources to find and explain important background, but by and large the article must follow the sources. And we certainly can't invent anything that doesn't exist in the sources. Reliable Sources have decided that harassment and threats are a more notable story than potential conflicts of interest by video game journalists. It is what it is, and Wikipedia isn't a place to try to "fix" how it's being covered. BTW, the article long and rambling. Does this seriously need 21 screenfulls of text and 135 references??? Alsee (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional discussion

If it's the "near-majority of reliable sources" then it's not really a bias is it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Our articles on specific religions and faith are going to use a near-majority of sources that favor of that religion, but these articles do not stoop to preaching that religion but talking about it in a clinical, hands off manner. That's the same issue here. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There are enough reliable sources on religions that are separate from the religion that allow us to present it clinically. There is near universal coverage of Gamergate that says the misogynistic attacks and death threats belie any minimal attempts they have made to present themselves as a consumer movement wanting to root out corruption in games journalism, as they've accomplished nothing concrete and intentionally focused their attention on indie games and female journalists and their advertisers.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Which we cannot present as fact (that is, that proGG is misogynistic), just as we cannot say, in the case of Christianity, that the Earth was created in 7 days. We can say that the faith presents the Genesis theory that the Earth was created in 7 days, and we can say the media believes the proGG is misogynistic, but we have to recongize the line between fact and opinion, and we are relying on far too much opinion here. --MASEM (t) 05:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the utilitarian approach is needed here. I can't see how there'd be more benefit to purporting Gamergate being misogynistic as an objective fact than there would be cost. SJWs reading the page would simply say "yes, that's true" and move on, while Gamergaters would, if not resorting to vandalism or good-faith disruption, be extremely (and rightfully) miffed. Tezero (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you actually saying we should solely refer to everything as opinions and not objective facts to avoid pro-Gamergate vandalism and edit warring?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's one good reason. Tezero (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a terrible idea.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Why? Tezero (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Because there is no reason to not address something ust because it might result in vandalism or disruption. Omitting established information or treating it in another voice because a minority viewpoint on the matters disagree with it makes no sense. Doing so is effectively self-censorship, which goes against one of the pillars of Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

So you have evidence that everyone that harassed those people were misogynistic? The answer is clearly no. But we do know that sources felt the attacks were misogynistic, so we can state that in their voice, but not in WP's voice. That's a big different here. --MASEM (t) 07:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I've said here. Omitting information or treating a preponderance of similar information as an opinion of multiple sources is not how things work on all other articles on Wikipedia. It is only because of the highly vocal nature of the Gamergate supporters that this article is being treated as different.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not the attacks were carried out with a misogynistic intent is something that cannot be determined by observation alone, so while a majority of sources have claimed the attacks were misogynistic does not make it a fact, simply the popular opinion. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I find it humorous when editors care about an anonymous movement being labelled as "misogynistic" yet have no problem calling others "SJWs". "Why do those cream-faced loons keep calling me a flap-eared knave?" Do you see why some editors may question your own good faith when you use terms like that? Woodroar (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't support calling them "SJWs" in the body text, even if this were supported by the majority of sources, because it too could be considered a loaded term. I happen to think it's obvious that most of them are, so I willingly do so here, but there's a difference between talk pages and mainspace. Tezero (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

When you have dozens of publications, and not solely video game websites, saying that the actions taken under the umbrella of GamerGate to Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, Jenn Frank, Leigh Alexander, and Felicia Day are misogynistic, then we can say that such acts are misogynistic. When multiple sources say that the initial allegations against Quinn were false (in all the myriad ways they explain that there was no initial breach of ethics), we can say that they were false allegations. Nearly everything else in the article is a quote and labeled as an opinion because the supporters of Gamergate do not want it in Wikipedia's voice.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

"Misogynistic" is one of the most charged adjectives of the twenty-first century, though. We can't say (though I've definitely seen well-established users here who disagree with this policy) that child pornography is wrong, even though I can guarantee without checking that the extreme majority of reliable sources would not only say it is, but let this bias cripple the entirety of their writings. In other words, it doesn't matter how many sources say Gamergate is misogynistic; that's not a sterile, objective enough fact for us to put in our own voice. Tezero (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We are reporting that multiple news agencies, including the New York Times, the BBC, CNN, etc., have called the acts misogynistic. The article as far as I am aware is not equating this with morally reprehensible, as one would describe child abuse. However we are equating death threats with moral reprehensibility. Just because those death threats constitute misogyny does not mean we are presenting misogyny as morally reprehensible. That's all I can truly say to your analogy here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Why should we paint death threats as morally reprehensible? Tezero (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

In what context is a death threat sent to someone having an innocuous opinion on the Internet about video games ever not morally reprehensible?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Because that's not a fact. You can not objectively state anything is morally reprehensible, only that others say it is. That's his point. And that's part of being neutral. Halfhat (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Because there's not a single reliable source that doesn't treat them as morally reprehensible, and the idea that a death threat isn't morally reprehensible is so fringe as to be effectively nonexistent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ours is not to state whether something is morally reprehensible, only to state citeable facts in the context of the sources. In that same breath we shouldn't assume unless outright emphasized that misogyny is the reason behind such threats, as that's synthesizing information from what was given us.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

When multiple reliable sources say that the threats are misogynistic then we can report on that determination. We should not temper how Wikipedia reports on these things simply because of the pro-Gamergate cries of bias.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Then shouldn't we make that distinction that they're making the determination clear, and not treat it outright as fact?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

On every other topic, when multiple sources make the same distinction, generally that indicates it as a fact.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is the article doesn't read neutral in many sections, primarily in tone and to an extent information. It states Felicia Day was harassed, yet there appears to be no ongoing evidence of that outside of someone posting her personal information. Also her commentary was sincere, calling it 'scathing' makes me really wonder what we should call some of the articles Kotaku has posted as of late. The New York Times article lists the threats against Sarkessian as being from GamerGate, yet no mention of the movement was even made in those threats. Then again I don't recall them being mentioned in the threats made against Wu either, and that can be cited from the reports on the tweets themselves.

Unfortunately I'm going to abstain from going on this further; I have personal involvement with this and feel strongly about it, so I'd rather not let my opinion cloud my judgement. But I do feel it's important that we separate opinion from media outlets from fact.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No true Scotsman.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That makes no sense. It's not no true sctotsman to say it's not fact because it's opinion. You don't seem to know what that phrase means. Halfhat (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll be honest I'm not entirely sure where you're going with that there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You are repeating the logical fallacy that Gamergate makes to distance itself from the harassment that happens in its midst.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not a logical fallacy. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but you clearly have no understanding of logic, you're just going "You committed a fallacy", with no real understanding. That would only apply if they went "We never harass people because we define ourselves so that if you harass you aren't one of us" it's a sort of combination of questionable definition and tautology. Halfhat (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

...I'm pointing out problems I have with the article in a reasonable manner. How is that a 'logical fallacy' when we use statements to imply a steady stream of harassment against Ms. Day, when there's no evidence of such?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You are raising the issues that the attacks and harassment did not explicitly state that Gamergate was the reason or their actions. Also, Day's commentary is not being described as "scathing". Kluwe's is. The one where he refers to Gamergaters as "basement-dwelling, cheetos-huffing, poopsock-sniffing douchepistols". And the posting of her address is being treated as harassment by the various sources that are reporting on it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm certainly not pro-gamergate; I think what little attention most of its supporters spend on actual ethical issues is wiped out by how much more time they spend arguing with and gossiping about specific online personalities that disagree with them, even aside from the undercurrent of harassment that certain supporters continue to use without being really excised from the movement, or from the very clear way the movement is shaped by people using it to complain about feminism and liberalism in video game culture. That said, like I say in the section above, you can go a long way in any direction with how you word an article, even with the same sources. I think this article gets preachy. I think that's because it's so exhausting to block gamergate SPAs and well-intentioned ignorant new editors from wrecking the article that the only voices that manage to really get into the article are those that are vociferously against gamergate. To be a bit specific, I'm really glad that Ryulong and NorthbySouthwhatever are here to keep this article from floundering into nonsense and crud, but it has resulted in an article that pulls away from objectivity into a heavily negative piece that still relies on the same sources that a really clear, clean article would.

The thing is, I don't think it's solvable. At least not for months and months yet. As long as this is an ongoing event, and as long as there are so many GG supporters who are insistent on creating an article that reflects their views rather than reflects an objective, RS-based take on the issue, then the status quo is going to remain, even if that status quo isn't as good as it could/should be. --PresN 06:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This. The article should be pretty much two paragraphs - one describing it, second summarising it, and then lots of blank space until something actually happens where we can define "Gamergate" outside of the harassment as currently that is pretty much all it is. Koncorde (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Widely accepted opinion is still not fact we need to not present it as such. Halfhat (talk) 10:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Widely accepted reliable sources are as close to "Fact" as you get for wikipedia. This is why there are other "wiki" out there that have lower thresholds for inclusion. Koncorde (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

With some thought you can normally differentiate between opinion and fact. For example if there's no way they could possibly know that "GG is a front for misogyny" it can't be fact so it's opinion. Halfhat (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

"With some thought" suggests Original Research or Synthesis. All sources are opinions at the moment, either pro, anti, or comment. You either have them (and the current article in its heinous form) or you don't have them and accept that the article should be very much condensed. One is an aggregate of news, the other is an encyclopedic article. Koncorde (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No all it requires is some comprehension of what the sources are saying. By your logic everything is synthesis other than just saying what others say. It's not coming up with anything new only looking to see if what is stated is opinion or fact. Halfhat (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If we are not saying what they say, then we are synthesising an argument or position, or performing original research. If we are going to present opinion in an article then what they say is the only factual matter we can go by. So the question is - should we be relying on opinion in order to frame an article? Koncorde (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

To addres Tarc's point in Q1 (And I think a few others have said). Yes, one side of GG is clearly a minority , but not FRINGE source; they have influenced large companies. And while the purported purpose of GG is to state that there claimed issues with COI in video game journalism (and to note that some journalists have acknowledged that is true), the larger story from the purposes of Wikipedia are the events that surround this: that there was harassment, that there was press calling them out as misogynistic attacks, and subsequent actions that are still going on. So this is not like saying "oh, the viewpoint of the proGG is FRINGY, we can ignore it", the point here is that in covering the response and actual event, this article in its present state, relying on the clear majority sourcing that is antiGG, is too biased preachy in calling out the antiGG actions and responses (not their view on the ethics question) as "right" and proGG as "wrong", in this case, using excessive quotes and troubling words to point out every "bad" thing that the proGG is doing over and over. We can cover the issue a lot more fairly without giving undue weight to the proGG fringe view without making that side look like villains, simply by paring down the amount of preachy antiGG quotes and viewpoints, as so that WP does not appear to take a side in the issue. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that some companies have responded to gamergate's email campaigns (and generally backtracked when they realized what they'd stepped in) does not prove that the 'but ethics!' angle is not a fringe view. It does not prove that the motivation for those emails was 'ethics' rather than 'punishing people who call us on our misogyny,' and it does not address the problem that our reliable sources are still not treating this as a campaign for ethics in journalism. We base our weighting of the article on what the sources are saying, not on our own evaluation of real world events surrounding the article's subject. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You missed the point. There's the debate over ethics; this would be like the Obama birthers or the 9/11 conspiracies theory aspects, an issue of ideologies. But here we actually have events and responses to those events due to issues with those ideologies that have been extremely confrontational, none which happened in Tarc's list of fringe theories. We're covering an article that involves both an ongoing event and a minority viewpoint on ideologies. If it were possible to eliminate the ideologies and talk only on the events, that's where we have to make sure that us covering the events is as unbiased as possible, and that means we cannot prejudge the intention of the minority side even if the other side already has (we have to work "innocent until proven guilty" for all purposes. And that's not what this article does right now. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

TBH I'm not sure abandoning WP:RS or loosening it to allow what you call the "ProGG" side to be represented would have the effect you are hoping for anyway - it would open the way to people adding their direct impressions of GamerGate and quoting 8chan and the like, which is only going to make them look worse. Artw (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, that's not what I'm asking for; we can't add more about the proGG side, but we can take away from the antiGG side that is more opinion than fact based. A major point to consider - we have no hard evidence that the proGG side - those arguing for ethics - have been the ones that have engaged in harassment/etc., and certainly even less that every proGG user has participated. It's an Occum's Razor argument that some calling themselves as proGG are involved, which is what the press is doing, but that is still their opinion and not a proven fact. As such, we cannot take the side that proGG are "guilty" (in this case, the constant reuse of pointing out the campaign is misogynistic) even if this is the popular opinion of the press. We don't write articles on suspects before their trial if they are guilty even if the press is convinced the person is, we cannot do the same here. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

By treating sources differently depending on whether you see them as supporting a particular POV you're actually arguing for introducing bias into the article, not removing it. Artw (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No, we're moving a bias that an encyclopedia cannot support. This might be a bias in terms of how the larger story is presented, but as an encyclopedia we are to cover a story as neutrally as possible and that means we might have to skew the coverage when we recognize that coverage is skewed one was (WP:BIAS). Again, if there was a major crime and its suspect was called as guilty by the whole of the press before any official trial, our article that deals with that suspect would not work on the basis they was guilty though we'd certainly mention the press calling them out as such because we need to be neutral. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You are ignoring vast swathes of Wikipedia policy in favour of your personal theory that the coverage is skewed and needs balancing in some way. Artw (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, as an encyclopedia we are not beholden to cover any story. When a story is covered then it is based upon the reliable sources. If the reliable sources do not represent "balance" then that is all we can do, or in fact should do. However it is important that we are neutral about the actual reliable sources in presenting the relevant information. At the moment the article fails there because of its reliance upon opinion to try and define something that cannot define itself. Koncorde (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That is not the point. We can't cover the proGG in any great detail, that's clear. We however cannot praise one side over the other because the opinion of reliable sources. That's systematic bias. We are supported to be neutral, meaning that we cannot take the position of either side in the argument, and limit our coverage to the facts. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

again with your false dichotomy. There cannot be a "pro-gamergate" "side" when there is no widely accepted defined definition of what "gamergate " is or means. There are lots of accounts using the term, each in their own personal way. The reliable sources have covered the uses they have determined to be noteworthy - the most noteworthy as an ostensible cover for harassing women . Other uses are vaguely covered, mostly as how they are attempting to excuse or divert attention from the harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do dismiss Masem's reply by saying that there cannot be a pro-gamergate side represented in the article when Masem, in the very post you are replying to, states the exact same thing? Masem said that we can't cover the proGG in any great detail, and your counter-argument is that we cannot represent the pro-gamergate side? Thats exactly the same thing. Omegastar (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem was admitting that, not emphasizing it. His point was that, regardless of the proliferation of anti-GamerGate coverage in the reliable media, we should not "praise one side over the other", and that's what TRPoD was disputing. Tezero (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, I realize that oyu want to be fair to both sides, but loife doesn't always work like that. If anything, we have to work to pare down the "pro-GG" prose, since during as in the week-ish full protection we saw a lot of reliable sources come down firmly against the "but ethics" side of this debate. It is a minority point-of-view, and our article needs to reflect that. Tarc (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not the point. Look at every quote that includes the word "misogynistic" (or derivatives), and ask, "are they necessary to understand the fundamentals of the Gamergate controversy?" Some will be, yes, but this would only apply to less than half of the quotes (last I checked). The rest of the times they appear, it is all anti-GG "preachy" side stuff - which is unnecessary. That's what we can trim out and start to fix the tone of the article. --MASEM (t) 00:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If there's editorial reasons be be less word-repetitive, that's fine, although care should be take not to dilute too much of the content. Tarc (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not the repetition of the word, it is the repetition of the same basic opinion (that the proGG side is misogynistic, in this case) when that repetition does not further the factual summary of this article; the additional quote is simply there to bolster the antiGG side's stance as the right one. We are going to have to mention misogyny in a few places in the factual discussion of the case - that the press saw it that way, and the proGG responded with both #NotYourShield and with OperationDisrespectful nod. But that's it. More than half the other uses of the word appears in quotes that are simply attack quotes that, were the proGG a singular named person, would edge on BLP issues. Obviously that doesn't fall under BLP, but then there is also common sense that there are still real people behind the proGG side that aren't part of the harassment but that because of how we've structured this article assigns the blame on them. We should be handling this as clinically as possible. Someone above (can't find immediately) made the good point that at this stage of the development of Gamergate we should not be attempting to apply analysis to it this soon, and instead wait for distant-enough sources that can look back, evaluate all the events as they happen, and then make more rational, less emotional decisions. Instead, and I've had friends that are proGG tell me this as well as checking through the usual proGG forums that they are insulted by the tone this article takes. They don't deny that their cause is called misgynistic - they know that stigma exists and there are actually efforts to try to present a better front that clearly denounces any harassment (which they are trying to oust and identify who did it when it happens, and have claimed to track down many of the more recent cases to pure trolling groups that are simply there to stir the shit), but our article is written in a tone that prosecutes them for just being tied to the proGG side, when there has been no solid conviction of the responsible parties. We cannot take the side the press is taking here, though we can present the press's viewpoint as clearly the most predominate. --MASEM (t) 07:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think people should read WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:YESPOV And WP:STRUCTURE as well Retartist (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This is what this article really needs. More discussion on bias. We've come so far, just a few more thousand fucking words and we'll have cracked the case! Protonk (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Lets sort out the introduction once and for all

I'd say the introduction suffers from the most bias problems and needs to be addressed. To prevent edit warring I say we start this section to decide how to go about making it as objective as possible, with as little loaded language as possible Halfhat (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Introduction? How about the entire article. This article has been gone about in entirely the wrong way. Anybody writing an article like this needs to take a massive step back when doing so. By all means write about a particular point of view, but don't carry on about it. For example:

"However, Gamergate has become most notable for a series of misogynistic and violent threats and harassment targeting Quinn and other prominent women in gaming, which have drawn widespread condemnation of the movement"

Now, who says this is the case? From the looks of it the author. Certainly depending on who you ask you will get mixed responses on this, some would agree with that, others including myself would disagree. Take a step back, by all means state there are accusations of misogyny, but importantly say who is making them. The author making an opinionated claim like that would not be tolerated on any other article and I see no reason at all to make an exception. —Frosty ☃ 11:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

When multiple non-video games publications are all saying "misogyny" and "violent threats" then that's notability.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, it's a verifiable fact that the movement is most notable for its harassment issues. This is trivial to demonstrate through a brief Google News search of "Gamergate." Reliable, mainstream sources focus almost exclusively on the harassment issues and basically ignore the ethics claims. The New York Times, MSNBC, etc. didn't write stories about someone's ethical concerns in journalism — they wrote stories about women in video games being harassed and threatened out of their homes. The harassment issues dramatically overshadow any and all points Gamergate might have once been interested in making, and have resulted in widespread condemnation and rejection of the movement in mainstream sources. Just about every mainstream source on the issue concludes "Gamergate is fatally tainted by harassment and anti-feminism." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, why are we saying that the allegations against Quinn were "proven" false, when the only sources say that Stephen Totilo, Grayson's boss, said he didn't find any wrongdoing? I'm not saying we need to question his account, but acting as if his word is objective fact isn't neutral. There's also no mention of Grayson being listed in Depression Quest credits or his admission to having been a tester for the game. Agent Chieftain (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We've been over this a lot, but we're saying that they were proven false because all of the sources (including Breitbart) have been describing them that way. Grayson didn't write about Quinn when in a relationship with her, so there is no doubt about the issue.

No reliable source has covered Depression Quest's credits, and I'm going to make the guess that none will - it simply isn't an issue. Accordingly, we can't cover it. - Bilby (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Depression Quest is a reliable source when it comes to its own credits where as a newspaper can only be a secondary source when no journalist was present. Andrew Swallow (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue is how much weight we should give it. At the moment no WP:RS cares about the credits so we don't include it in this article. Strongjam (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The lead is currently too biased in favor of Gamergate sources, which are effectively a fringe POV. The entire first paragraph is basically a hand-waiving apology from a pro-gamergate POV. It effectively says "Yes, there was some harassment, but that was only from a 'minority', and wait, we have real concerns but for some reason the mainstream media won't listen to us!" Gamergate was an online lynch mob. There's no reason we have to whitewash that just because the mob has suddenly discovered Wikipedia and doesn't like being called a mob. Kaldari (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the first paragraph to an older version. I am not aware of consensus for that bloated mess which essentially shoved down anti-GG rhetoric down readers' throats instead of concisely and neutrally describing the situation. It's the first paragraph in the lead. You can mention sexism and misogyny (like it already is now) but overall it should be a quick summary. If it is to be expanded we should have consensus. starship.paint ~ regal 14:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not "anti-Gamergate rhetoric". It's an accurate summary of what has happened. There is never going to be any way to cast a positive light on the Gamergate movement. The version of the lead that explains that women have left their homes and that the media does not acknowledge Gamergate's goals as being sincere or ever feasibly realized in 3 months time should be restored rather than constantly dilutin the article to satisfy a contingent that will never be happy until it's heavily biased in their way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention that the RFC is full of new editors complaning almost exclusively about this sterile and short lead paragraph that they all say is biased in favor of the pro-Gamergate side because it gives their "it's also about ethics in journalism" meme prevalence.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I counted exactly one new (and zero old) editor doing so since my last post. Unless they complained before I even made the edit, I don't see how you can say it's "full of new editors". Anyway, the women fleeing their homes is already in the second paragraph of the lead. Unless anyone is physically harmed or attacked, I do not think it warrants mention in the very first paragraph of the lead. The rest of the stuff you're talking about, you can discuss to include it in the second/third paragraph of the lead. starship.paint ~ regal 23:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I meant editors new to the content dispute. Not brand new editors on the site.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no misunderstanding, I counted only Sandstein. starship.paint ~ regal 02:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps he's the only one raising issues about the lead, but Kaldari, Cuchullain, Slverseren, CIreland, and Robofish all seem to have issues with how the pro-GG POV is being over-presented.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Me too! The recent coverage of "what is gamergate" is that it is ostensibly some vague allegations or complaints being used as a cover for a trollfest of harassment and terrorism. We are FAR from being in sync with such descriptions with FAR too much time and validity given to these "ostensibles" . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like there is more quotes from Quinn then needed

I'm not sure, but it seems like just about every topic has her opinion, it seems excessive. Halfhat (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you not understand that the only reason GamerGate exists is because of Zoe Quinn?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

She was the root cause, but the case isn't entirely about her. Why are you so condescending in all of your edits? Agent Chieftain (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Because myself and other editors of this page have had to answer questions like this constantly for the past 3 months.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

So? While I can understand your frustration, it is not an excuse to behave badly. After all, I am not aware that Wikipedia guidelines about civility include the clause '-If you are frustrated and irritated, feel free to stop being civil'. Omegastar (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Quinn was NOT "the cause" - she was "the target". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

She was both. Among other things, her comments about transphobia (which I think were good-natured, if misguided in context) were a handy representation of how ridiculously politicized the game industry has become, so some Gamergaters latched onto her for that. Either way, being "the cause" of harassment against other celebrities doesn't necessarily imply that she took this position willingly or that they deserved it, only that she contributed in some indirect way to targeting of someone besides herself. Tezero (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen one GamerGater give any shit about what Zoe thinks about transgender people because since the beginning it was attacks on her sex life.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Can i get a link, i have not heard of this Retartist (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that every section without a major connection to her needs her opinions, she deserves mention, but it's currently just excessive bloat. Halfhat (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Second Paragraph of "The role of journalists in the controversy"

The second paragraph of the "The role of journalists in the controversy" section is entirely sourced from a self-published source on medium by Ryan Smith. I believe it's the last WP:SPS left in the article. Can it be removed or sourced from secondary sources? Strongjam (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it has been noted in more RS sources as an example of a useful essay (but I would have to double check). If RSes have called attention to this, then we technically can use it, though we should cite the RS quoting it. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: I'm not having much luck finding any references to the essay outside of blogs and etc. I'd like to use something like this instead but I'm pretty sure that would be WP:OR since it's pre-GG. Strongjam (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've looked too , and I can't find a high quality RS that points back to this essay. As such I removed it (earlier) since that really didn't have any core importance to the article and being an SPS , difficult to justify inclusion if no one else has pointed to that. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

TFYC, #NotYourShield 'undue' weight

Since there's the anchor that this all started with the harassment of ZQ, and these two topics were among the same set of catalysts triggering the movement, it's not undue to have these sections in the page. Q ^{T C} 00:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

TFYC appear to be chancers who glommed on to GamerGate in order to promote themselves, and by covering them we are assisting in that, so I am fully in favor of ditching that entire section. Artw (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Here you go: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Does that answer your question?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(c/e) WP:BALASPS No, we go by what the reliable sources say about this. As of the time has passed the reliable sources no longer see them as major points- no one has covered them in weeks. For us to call BOTH of them out as stand alone sections is WP:STRUCTURE structure violation-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

"False allegations were made against Zoe Quinn" pretty much covers it and we already have that. Artw (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD, are you proposing we delete all content relating to 'too old' of sources? That's essentially what you're trying to say of TFYC and NotYourShield, because apparently, not being covered in recent news source = immediate deletion of due weight and of the article. I guess in 6 months we'll just have to delete the GamerGate page, then? Because no one continues to cover it? Tutelary (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

What I am saying that as time goes on an reliable sources reassess what gamergate is, we need to follow their lead. as time is going on the majority of sources are clearly not covering these as important aspects, and at the best, they were minor points of coverage to begin with. Keeping them as stand alone sections is WP:STRUCTURE failing to give them appropriate weight and position in regards to the topic as it is currently seen.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit reluctant to let #notYourShield go as it's the only place we discuss the role of the various boards in directing the Twitter campaign. Artw (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I will argue that to some extent both of these topics have not had the significance in the narrative today as they did a month ago, and could be trimmed down to the more basic facts. Definitely not removed entirely as they are important, but we simply don't need to have proseline-type discussions of these. --MASEM (t) 01:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

TFYC is actually key to the GamerGate article as it prompted the creation of Vivian James and that character is a widespread symbol of GamerGate. We should not be judging the contents of the entire article on the basis of recent coverage. Even amidst the flurry of coverage TFYC still pops up with significant mentions as in several articles I linked above from this month. I would also note that we should consider the redundancy of content in sources. When you have a hundred different reports over a week about the exact same incident of harassment concerning a single person, we cannot treat these as thorough review pieces of GamerGate as a whole. Much of the coverage editors are using to assign weight are highly-opinionated pieces commenting on some new occurrence and should not be treated with greater weight than pieces that seek to provide a thorough overview of events.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Vivian James is your rationale? NOBODY mentions that. At ALL. With regards to WP:RECENTISM , that is what resulted in these sections being added in the first place. They were NEVER a significant portion of the discussion from the reliable third parties. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You are seriously out of touch if you think Vivian James is an insignificant part of the Gamergate controversy. She's even acknowledged by the anti-Gamergate side: they take issue with Gamergate using a female avatar to represent their cause, seeing this as unrealistic. Tezero (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Show me one mainstream reliable source in the past 2weeks that has mentioned VJ in its overview of what is important about gamergate. for wikipedia, what some insiders in an amorphous and leaderless campaign think is "important" is irrelevant when the outside world takes no interest. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, what does it have "in the past 2 weeks"? Read [[[WP:RECENTISM]] Loganmac (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Red! How are you doing?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I HAVE read WP:RECENTISM and I have read many of the recently published mainstream articles giving current view ALL of the history of Gamergate and they are not covering the astroturfed NOTYOURSHIELD nor the cute little mascot. There was only a brief period where those were being covered and it was at that time that the topics were added and given full sections which was now clearly a WP:RECENTISM violation .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, golly gee, Red, "astroturfed" you say? Only the real hardcore anti-GamerGaters use that completely inaccurate term to describe anything involving GamerGate. I mean, even if one went with NotYouShield being a contrivance of a 4chan conspiracy, which is demonstrably false, it would still not be astroturfing since a bunch of random nobodies on 4chan making anything is still very much a grassroots action.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

yes, astroturfed i say . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

And if by those links you are suggesting that we need to reformat our article so that it presents gamergate as a hate group,or no more than a front for trolling and abuse with a single line about the mascot, i am all for that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:Recentism does not apply here. A glance at Twitter shows that the hashtag is still quite active, and so readers should expect to find coverage in this article. Likewise with The Fine Young Capitalists, who are currently in development of a game associated with this article's topic.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It is very clear that WP:RECENTISM applies here. content and claims that were given "some" attention in the run up have over the "longer view" shown to be irrelevant to how the reliable sources are now looking at the subject. It will continue to be so over the next 6 months -year or so until academic studies start coalescing on what happened, what was important and where the impact actually has been (and I will give you dollars to doughnuts that the "impact" has not been in ferreting out "unethical journalists" but in harassment creating a very unwelcome atmosphere for half of the population) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Too biased.

I will not mention name, but some people here has now coup de etat this article the last 24 hours too their personal views. This happened even though some of the persons involved promised to take a break from editing here after several people have complained about this persons behaviour. This has made this article very ubalanced. --Torga (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

We have been there and done that multiple times. reflecting what the now overwhelming mainstream views of the topic are is not in any way "bias". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You can call me out, Torga, just as I can call you out for being a single purpose account who has done nothing on Wikipedia in the past three months other than contribute to this article and its talk page to push the idea that this article is biased. Now stop restoring the lead paragraph to an older version because now it's fucking fully protected again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

As you opened this thread, Torga you cannot remove this because you personally do not think that Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and Brianna Wu leaving their homes out of fear for their lives is not connected to GamerGate. This is supported by multiple sources. Do not give me the "GamerGate is not mentioned in the threats" excuse either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

When did you became the boss of this site. You are acting like you have authority here. Why is it that you insists that everything you write should stand, and only way we are allowed to remove those things you write is with a concensus afterwards? And if we do add something, you claim there are no sources, and when there are sources you claim they are not reliable, and when there are relaible sources you dismiss them as either in minority or that there are no consensus to change thing. --Torga (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the things I've contributed to the page are supported by reliable sources. You've personally done no such thing as far as I am aware, and particularly not in this situation as per below.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, you cannot claim that "Boogie" and "Nero" (Yiannopoulos) have also fled their homes when they are not addressed by reliable sources. You cannot add the claim that "two pro-GG journalists" to the page. I don't even know if boogie2988 qualifies as a journalist so much as he is just some talking head on YouTube who plays a character.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

a source about how being a leaderless, amorphous group is impacting the "movement"

A nice encapsulation from a source that does media analysis: the on-going troll crusade known as #gamergate wherein a small rabble is using a trumped up scandal as cover for a full on attack on female game makers and game critics.

They go on to discuss the "tactic" of being an amorphous, leaderless movement, and how the key spokespeople / signalboosters for the movement have come from outside of the game industry and are essentially using the topic to recruit a new demographic to their own audiences. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

3-day protection

Due to immediate revert warring upon unprotection, I have re-protected this article for a 3 day period. Please use this time to come to some consensus here on the talk page. Thank you. Nandesuka (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

We did come to a consensus over many subjects. There are just a bunch of single purpose accounts whining that the consensus is against them. You just jumped in here out of nowhere to lock everything down again unprovoked.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I trust Nandesuka. As soon as the article opened up, there were a ton of POV edits made, some very large ones infact, and any that tried to curb the POV were immediately reverted by some of the most active POV pushers on this article. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some of the users here had a window of opportunity to shape the article into their POV before any of us that want to keep the neutrality could react. It will not happen again. --Torga (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not POV. It has been established multiple times on this page in the past 24 hours that because the pro-Gamergate side of the debate is not being recognized in reliable sources saying anything more about them is giving them undue weight. If anyone here is a POV pusher it is you two. This article is neutral because it reflects what reliable sources have to say about GamerGate. Just because you two, two very pro-Gamergate editors, don't like it does not mean the article is no longer not neutrally written.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

We have not come to an agreement save for a few issues, and it is still begs the question of being POV, so the tag is appropriate. That type of attitude is not conductive for consensus building. --MASEM (t) 02:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You are not being neutral in this matter. I know you are doing your damnedest to try to get the pro-Gamergate people to stop hemming and hawing over every new change to the page because things are going their way. I'm tired of it, Masem. We all are. Your RFC is a sham. It's worded terribly and in a way that really shows you're trying to temper someone into stopping and it's ridiculous at this point.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No, we are not all tired of it. I, personally, am extremely contemptuous of Anita Sarkeesian and most of the other anti-Gamergaters involved, though I'm not really wild about the pro-Gamergate side either, but I welcome Masem's efforts at peacekeeping through diplomacy and neutrality. Tezero (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop bolding everything like you have a point. It actually has not been established, that is where there is a NPOV tag on it. Each lead change didn't have a consensus, it was made and anyone who tried to change it or revert it was immediately shot down by people trying to keep the article to one POV. Your last edit was a blatant POV push by stating it was less 'gamergate apologetic'. Hell, go look at WP:CONTROVERSY for a few minutes. Its not even just us two either, its plenty of editors that you disregard on this page. Your not fooling -anyone- Ryulong, not one person. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of established editors who have been entirely uninvolved in this article for the past several months are recognizing that #GamerGate is not a topic that those who support it are ever going to be satisfied with how this article will depict them. And multiple users on AN and here have said that the "compromise" lede written after a previous dispute earlier in the day did not reflect the stance reliable sources have taken on this. And Wikipedia:Controversial articles is an essay and not a strict policy or guideline that everyone else is doing their best to keep to, but the pro-GG camp editors like you and Torga keep complaining that it's not what they want it to say because Wikipedia cannot adequately present GamerGate's stance based on the reliable sources available.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Not at all, plenty of editors have said this is a POV pushed article, THAT IS WHY THERE IS A NPOV TAG ON THE ARTICLE. Hell, even the RS'es talk about what the pro-gamergate camp wants, so yes, there are RS'es, no matter what the hell you say. The only thing is, you are blatantly pushing a POV, so you won't let that go uncontested. You also know, that essays are good to go by right? Essays HELP, unlike you. Hell, you even just told Masem he has been doin a shit job, told the admin who locked it they were wrong (Not taking into account how you USED to be an admin), and are saying everyone is wrong except for your POV. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Read the RFC started by Masem above and look at all of the editors who have never touched this article or talk page until the RFC was publically listed. They are nearly all recognizing that there are not POV issues with this article because giving any more credence to the pro-GG side of the debate is a violation of WP:UNDUE. The POV tag does not mean jack squat in the long run because there's been zero actual discussion on fixing the POV that doesn't devolve into "I don't like how this is saying Gamergaters are bad". And I can freely disagree with people's actions regardless of them being an administrator, or myself having formely been one. That doesn't mean they have to do shit to address my concerns if they continue to disagree with me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I see plenty of split thoughts on the RFC up top, you are just trying to push one side. It is not Undue either, that has been debunked over and over, since RS'es talk about it. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, NOT A PLATFORM. Your making this your platform and pushing your POV. Its pretty obvious you don't care about anyone's decisions unless they line up with your POV, and have told two admins, who have only been helpful, that they are not doing a good job of letting you have your soapbox. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

How many of those "split thoughts" are coming from people who have been heavily invovled with this article and talk page. And it is indeed UNDUE to cut content that is critical of GamerGate so it doesn't spite GamerGate entirely. And still, I am allowed to disagree with other editors. They are administrators because they can be trusted with the block, delete, and protect tools. I clearly was not. If I'm not explicitly with GamerGate, then Gamergate thinks I am 100% against it. The article discusses the issues with ethics. It also discusses how people don't think they really mean it because no one can be sure what one GamerGater will say that another one won't.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong has requested that I reduce the protection level of this article to semiprotection. After reading through the recent discussion on WP:AN, I am inclined to do this. However, regardless of whether an editor can edit in the semi-protected state, I want to remind all editors that all pages related to Gamergate, including obviously this one, are under general sanctions. Any editor that fails to adhere to the normal editorial process may be subject to a number of sanctions, including but not limited to topic bans, blocks, or restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors.

Specifically, the wholesale revert warring that I saw going on has to stop. Please discuss all changes - including reverting to "the right version", where that version is whichever one you happen to like - on the talk page. I strongly urge you to frame the discussion sentence by sentence and source by source, and to focus firmly on the content rather than on the contributors. Anyone who cannot abide these restrictions will, I assure you, quickly find themselves topic-banned. Nandesuka (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If you do reduce it to semiprotection, please restore it to the length it was prior to the change to the full protection. This article still must be protected against possible BLP violations by new editors or editors from IP addresses.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You state the article is under general sanctions yet abide to a suggestion made by an user who has been constantly uncivil, biting noobs, outing admins for allegedly being SPAs, being completely biased and insulting everyone left and right. Loganmac (talk) 03:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've not outed anyone or been biased. Read WP:UNDUE.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think what everyone is trying to say is read WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:YESPOV Retartist (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

And WP:STRUCTURE as well Retartist (talk) 06:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BALASPS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.

WP:BALASPS is a small part of it, it means that while yes more anti-gg stuff should be there, it does not mean that we should take a side. IN fact we CANT take a side per

A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize.

Did you even read the whole NOPV page? Retartist (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You see, the issue here is that no one is giving the "pro-GG" side the time of day because they recognize that the movement began as a series of attacks on one woman and a false assumption that the only reason she would sleep with someone is to gain something from it and that they've accomplished nothing other than run women from their homes rather than root out any actual corruption and cronyism in video games media and instead made a bunch of websites add vague rules about Patreon and Kickstarter contributions. They've also accomplished getting a bunch of conservative talking heads on their side who arguably don't care about video games at all. Anyone who has done their best to cover what GamerGate really thinks has found nothing to refute their initial preconceptions, and many were attacked (even if not viciously) as a result.

This is all addressed in the article. Nearly everything is a quote from a journalist rather than being presented in Wikipedia's voice because of the constant complaints that presenting it as anything other than a quote or an opinion, despite the fact that many people independently have similar opinions and such regarding misogyny and harassment and that it's tied into GamerGate would under any other topic be considered a fact. The constant calls of "bias" on this article have almost always arisen from voices that have been making impossible claims on the article. That we must address aspects that violate WP:BLP or that are only being mentioned in fringe sources, or as below, barely mentioned in a very small number of reliable sources. Wikipedia is not taking a side in this dispute. There is simply only one side that can be adequately covered by Wikipedia based on WP:UNDUE and WP:V. I cannot personally tell how to sterilize this topic when it involves death threats, accusations of sexual impropriety, decrying opponents as SJWs, playing victim when a person with no power fights back, attacking anone trying to discover what they're about, amongst various other transgressions, most of which are described in the article or its sources. Of course the worst is that it's sendng video games back decades in how people view them.

There's that tweet that goes "1999: Video games do not cause school shootings. 2014: Video games causes someone to want to make a school shooting." That is what the public sees. That is how the media discusses things. Beyond Kotaku and Polygon though. This is the narrative of CNN, the BBC, the New York Times, Time magazine (and not just Leigh Alexander's piece), etc. Not what BreitBart and all of these no name blogs that have popped up when everyone began to distrust everything else because it wasn't showing exactly what they wanted. Wikipedia is not the venue to right the wrongs that GamerGate sees in its public image. That is what nearly every editor decrying "this is biased" or "there's no neutrality". Because they see GamerGate not being described as they want it to be described. They see it as biased because it's not exclusively biased in their favor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You make good points, but i still don't see why the article cannot be written "in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." The first sentence of the lede has lost acknowledgement of what gg claims to want and now reads like the opinions of the journalists.

"Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #GamerGate) is a controversy within video game culture concerning misogynistic attacks on various indie game developers, video game journalists, and other personalities involved with the video game industry."

"misogynistic attacks" is an opinion of writers. The sentence could be written like this:

Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #GamerGate) is a controversy/movement within video game culture that claims to be about corruption in journalism but has gained attention due to attacks on various game developers, video game journalists, and other personalities involved with the video game industry.

This is much better and keeps every core value and viewpoint of the article. Retartist (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Either one is an "opinion of writers," frankly. Because there is no "GamerGate" organization which can present a unified platform, there is no way to firmly define the movement's interests and goals. It is only the opinion of some people in GamerGate is that it's about "corruption in journalism." Others will say that GamerGate is about "SJWs" and feminists taking over video games and such, which are issues that have absolutely nothing to do with "corruption in journalism." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, when you read on the various threads offline from the proGG there are some that say that the pushing of political/social ideals via video games is part of the corruption, the example being given of Gone Home that reviewers praised the story (with strong LGBT themes) and completely overlooked the gameplay, making any of their reviews unhelpful, and in general slanting which games get the most coverage because of the presence of such themes. They want games taken at more face value as they used to, even if they carry a theme. There are definitely some more coherent arguments (some I don't agree with, some I do) once you get past the upper layers. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That is literally the most absurd argument in the history of ever. Overlooked *what* "gameplay"? Just because Gone Home doesn't involve shooty-shooty bang bang or hacky-slashy kill things? It's a friggin' point-and-click adventure, which has been a video gaming thing since the beginning of time. Claiming that its critical acclaim is an example of "corruption in journalism" is so absolutely bizarrely bonkers as to not deserve the time of day. You will not find a single reliable source which claims that Gone Home's critical reception has anything to do with actual "corruption in journalism."

Masem, this is exactly what is meant by the widespread, reliably-sourced observation that "journalism ethics" is a smokescreen for culture warring. The claim that reviewers praising a game for its story more than its gameplay are somehow "corrupt" is utterly incoherent and nonsensical. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never said this was a "good" opinion, but it is an opinion (and nor is it one I agree on). As that piece by Singal stated, if the GG clearly stated these types of issues in some type of goals statement, and backed it with a unified front, there might be more press respect for what their cause is. They are valid opinions, even if you don't agree with that. (And we do have sourcing for the counter argument that you can't review video games like you review cars or applicances which are supposed to meet a certain function) --19:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, Masem. There will never be any mainstream press respect for the "cause" that giving a good review to a game because of the power of its story is "corrupt" or "unethical," because that argument is literally nonsensical. It does not even purport to know what corruption and unethical behavior actually are, and has no relationship with actual reality. I repeat myself, but this very clearly demonstrates the incoherence of GamerGate's aims — honest reviews should be an expression of the review writer's opinion of the game, free from all outside influences, and GamerGate is attempting to be an unethical outside influence to pressure game reviewers to review games as GG demands rather than as an honest expression of their opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, and this type of thinking is why this article is a problem. It is an opinion. It might not be popular, the press may laugh at the time, but if it is a point that the proGG puts forward as one of their concerns, it's a point to address in this article. And while I can't give you any RS to support this, I have seen some game journalist reviews go "Yes, sometimes we get too much into the message and not the game" and then counter "but video games are an art form now, and its less about the gameplay". It is a completely fair opinion that some have taken seriously in the extend that they have provided counterarguments for, which they wouldn't have done if it is something that would have otherwise been laughed off. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not wrong. Reviews should express the honest opinions of the review writer. If you don't like a particular writer's review of a game, you can move on and read someone else's review of that game. Or, in this day and age, write your own review of the game. Attempting to pressure a reviewer to write the review as you want that game perceived rather than how the reviewer perceives that game is the very definition of unethical behavior in journalism. And that's why every mainstream source laughs at GamerGate's "ethics" claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not what they are saying , that's your preconvienced, biased notion of what they are saying. They know reviews are opinions, so they should reflect the opinions of reviews. But the proGG has also stated they want reviewers to remember that there are people that want to play games as games, and the fact that reviews will bury or not even cover the gameplay is one of their concerns; and that ties into the fact that a game with a strong message but zero gameplay can get extensive treatement in the press. Now, I don't agree with this viewpoint, but it is a cohesive and valid argument that is present in proGG boards. As soon as a RS can talk to this point, we should include it immediately, alongside the clear counterarguments that have been made. That's how to cover the ethics issue in a balanced manner. You don't have to agree (nor do I expect anyone to) with that view, but I do expect that there is some respect here for their concerns. We don't treat Obama birthers or 9/11 conspiratists with anything close to this same type of contempt. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You've just contradicted yourself (as does Gamergate). An honest review should not affected by any outside influence, period. Demanding that reviewers take into account what Gamergate wants them to take into account is an outside influence demanding that reviewers modify their opinions based on those outside demands. If you can't see how that's self-contradictory and logically incoherent, I can't help you. But it's clear to anyone outside the bubble that it makes no sense and has not the slightest thing to do with any conception of professional journalism ethics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If the articles the gamers are upset with are just controversial, deconstructive click-bait like, "Is Bayonetta more misogynist than Hitler?", then there is kind of a legitimate case for concern. Taking a close, critical inspection of the message a game is trying to tackle is one thing, but insulting a whole game because of sin, or degeneracy, or some other nebulous evil is just a way to bait people into re-posting the article, if for no other reason than to complain about it. From that perspective, I'd say there are feminists who are frustrated by these kinds of articles too, because there are games that do make social commentary and that commentary is being ignored in favor of hostile, terrible click-bait. Kind of like all this one-sided, controversial reporting being used to even talk about GamerGate.

I'm sure I could find articles discussing the way that the value of ad clicks has been falling over the years, and it may be having an impact on journalism at large, with GamerGate being one expression of dissatisfaction with that chase of extra clicks. I'm almost positive I can't find an RS to link this meaningfully to GamerGate, but I honestly think it's a major factor and it could be something that blows up on other journals that have been using the same tactics. All I'm saying is, don't write off the ethics stuff right away just because the details surrounding Quinn haven't held up to scrutiny. They're doing their best to kill Gawker, with enough success that it's getting attention, so after all that talk of "why don't they go after the journals instead of the girls if they're not misogynist," there's your response. They are going after the journals.

In any case, it remains tough to examine the end goal of GamerGate. There are a few articles discussing what they think those goals are and why, but there's so few of them. YellowSandals (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Julian Assange Misquoted

The 'Wikileaks' section currently states:

during the session a user fielded a question on censorship in Internet communities over GamerGate, Assange remarked that it was 'pathetic'"

. The cited article [9] only gives a passing mention to the Gamergate controversy once in the heading and doesn't link that particular quote to the controversy. The original post in the AMA thread makes it clear that this line is in reference to Gamergate, but the cited article does not.

Furthermore, there is no citation given to support that Assange believes Gamergate is 'uninteresting' as quoted in the article, and overall there seems to be some misrepresentation of his words in that section (a violation of WP:BLP I believe). Ninja337 (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

"It's pathetic." which is also addressed by The Verge's article on GamerGate (which makes the connection). Also Assange isn't quoted as saying it's not interesting. Whoever is in charge of the WikiLeaks Twitter account is quoted as saying "'Gamergate' is not interesting.]" (see also [10]).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That isn't clear from how the article sits now. The quote appears under a picture of Assange and the sentence it is mentioned in doesn't distinguish between Julian and the Wikileaks twitter. The Verge article is okay but it should be cited along with any quotes as per BLP.

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation.

. Ninja337 (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain it does but it can be clarified.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Muscat Hoe's removal of "jokingly"

To all sources cited in the paragraph:

• Topping their most-wanted list, at present, is Gawker Media’s Biddle, who tweeted a string of jokes about Gamergate on Thursday. In context, at least, the jokes were an obvious — if tongue-in-cheek — commentary on the movement’s well-documented, often hateful, idiocy. Critics construed them as an endorsement for bullying.
• Gamergate supporters were protesting a series of tongue-in-cheek tweets by Gawker-affiliated Valleywag editor Sam Biddle, jokingly calling to "bring back bullying" of nerds.
• These posts came after other jokes and criticism Biddle had posted about #GamerGate.
• Biddle, who is frequently sarcastic on Twitter, told Re/code, "I have literally not seen a single person who is not a GamerGate supporter who did not get that I was very obviously joking. Not a single one."

For this reason, I am restoring the word "jokingly".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Correction, I have replaced it with "tongue-in-cheek" as per the wording of the above quotations.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem getting people's opinions on this. My issue is we're claiming with 100% certainty that the tweets were made in jest when that's something that is impossible to confirm. The sources are the opinions of the authors and we can say that "So and so believes Biddle made the tweets in jest" or "Biddle later claimed they were in jest" (if we have sourcing), but we cannot claim straight up that the tweets were made in jest and expect this article to follow WP:NPOV. All we know is that the tweets were made. If one of the persons making death threats was arrested and claimed in court that their threats were only in jest, we wouldn't write that as if it were fact. Muscat Hoe (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are multiple news articles that seem to acknowledge their insincere nature.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is fine to include but it's opinion and therefore needs to be attributed to someone. I haven no issue with the current form:

In mid-October 2014, Sam Biddle, an editor for the Gawker affiliate Valleywag, made a series of tweets he claimed were a tongue-in-cheek call for a return to bullying of nerds.

Muscat Hoe (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe "claimed" would be a problem with WP:SAY. Would "stated" be a good replacement?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd think something along the lines of "made a series of tweets calling for a return to bullying of nerds that he later said were made tongue-in-cheek." Of course I dont English well, so . . . Q ^{T C} 04:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, only one tweet mentioned it. Maybe we need to be clearer still.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If somebody can dig up where he mentioned it was made tongue-in-cheek or jokingly, can probably phrase it better, but if all we have is third parties saying he didn't mean it derisively, not sure how much better it can be phrased. Q ^{T C} 04:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've found something and added it to the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's pretty good. As far as I can tell it was only two tweets so we could probably say that instead of 'a series of tweets' Muscat Hoe (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

According to sources, there were other tweets that preceeded it that set a context for insincerity in meaning. The "Bring Back Bullying" ones were just what sparked the fuse.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

See. This. This is why the article is biased. You fight tooth and nail against phrasing that relieves presupposed guilt on GamerGate, but when someone on the other side of the controversy puts their foot in their mouth, now you want to be extremely careful to maintain the most neutral possible wording. "Said" versus "claimed" is more neutral and the correct way to approach the wording, but this is very frustrating to watch you jockey for support to take this care for someone on your side of the fence while you accuse bloody murder of the other. YellowSandals (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No. I am pointing out that all the sources say that the "Bring Back Bullying" tweet was preceeded by several other Tweets where it was more obvious he was not being serious but GamerGate just latched onto the bullying one to make themselves martyrs. And I am arguing against using "claimed". You need to stop assuming bad faith.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikileaks

"others were more critical of the tweets, questioning how the various links to news articles and YouTube videos they contained could even be related to GamerGate at all" can anyone tell where this is come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javier2005 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Btw I thought ryulong was finally banned, why is he still here? Javier2005 (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

First, there is already a section on this talk page discussing WikiLeaks. Second, did you even look at this which is the reference right at the end of the sentence you're contesting? Let me pull a direct quote:

So how are members of Gamergate receiving it? "This is beautiful," wrote a Redditor who posted it to Kotaku In Action. "Wonder how they'll explain this one. 'Fighting for global freedom of information is now misogynistic!'" said another. But as with everything in Gamergate, not everyone was on board. "Can someone explain to me what these calls for assassination have to do with SJWs or GG?" one person asked. Someone else pointed out that the wording made it sound like social justice warriors inside Gamergate wanted to assassinate Assange. "This is the most tenuous link to GamerGate and 'SJWs' I've seen yet," said another commenter. "The threat image that Assange links to comes from a small conservative paper writing in 2010. No link to games, feminism or even corruption."

I summarized this as

While some supporters of GamerGate were enthusiastic for WikiLeaks' endorsement of their campaign, other supporters were more critical of the tweets, questioning how the various links to news articles and YouTube videos they contained could even be related to GamerGate at all.

And I'm not banned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

so are you saying that reddit and "kotaku in action" is a reliable source? Javier2005 (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that The Verge is a reliable source because the author is reporting on what he saw on Reddit. The Verge is being cited directly on this page. Not Reddit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

but still, "some" supporters and "other" supporters. I want to know WHO are them. The who tag should be kept. And please don't send me messages to my personal Twitter account Javier2005 (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

They are anonymous "gamergate supporters". Their identities are not relevant to this article to require the {{who}} tag. And don't accuse me of that kind of shit. Loganmac's Twitter was publically posted on Wikipedia when he decided to take the dispute on Wikipedia there. So long as you don't do the same, there won't be any "threat" of being told to "learn to fucking read".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

When we are reflecting and attributing to a reliable source that identifies "some" and "others" we can appropriately use "some" and "others" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Javier2005, stop demanding that we identify people being quoted when they are not specifically identified by the source. There is no reason for these tags.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

are you threatening me with posting my Twitter account on Wikipedia? Are you kidding me? Javier2005 (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Do not put words in my mouth and keep to the topic. Again, Wikipedia cannot and does not need to identify the people who are being vaguely referenced on The Verge's article and therefore on Wikipedia as they are not public figures.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

"Loganmac's Twitter was publically posted on Wikipedia when he decided to take the dispute on Wikipedia there. So long as you don't do the same, there won't be any "threat" of being told to "learn to fucking read"." This is a threat Javier2005 (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Another editor posted a link to a tweet Loganmac had made that was attacking him and I unfortunately decided to respond. So long as history does not repeat itself, there won't be any problems. That is not a threat. Now perhaps you should read what I said more carefully so I don't have to repeat myself and you don't have to pretend to be a victim.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't pretend to be a victim, even though you tried to get me banned during you infamous witchhunt. Javier2005 (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You're still here, aren't you?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the rule, exactly, on disruptive behavior. I've seen you praised for "considerable restraint" and "keeping your cool" for merely not insulting people on occasion. It take it an editor can get away with a great deal of negative behavior if they have some veterancy. I think you've been given more freedom with this article than any other editor, to the issue where there's little point in editing anything if you don't approve of it. My normal approach to biased articles is to simply re-write and leave, maintaining informational bits but removing purple prose and emotional belabors. Since I stepped into this thread, though, I haven't felt any such attempt would stand more than fifteen minutes with your watchful eye here. YellowSandals (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's the thing. This article isn't biased the way that Wikpedia considers things. You may think it is because despite the many ways you've been saying that you're a neutral voice in this, I can't really think of anything you've done here other than attempt to push the pro-Gamergate POV. The way Gamergate wants neutrality is different from how Wikipedia's rules and regulations treat neutrality as recognized in verifiable sources. Because the Gamergate point of view is pretty much only found in various self-published sources, extreme right wing blogs and websites that don't necessarily meet the guidelines of WP:RS. Not to mention many of these pro-Gamergate sources contain content and allegations that go against the WP:BLP policy. But that has not stopped several editors who have recently come to Wikipedia to state their point of view to adhere to that policy, considering that several editors have had their comments expunged from public view. Such as yourself last week on this very page or various editors to the Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian articles. We are all walking on egg shells here, but some people just want to keep at it despite consensus on Wikipedia, and in the media, being against them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

We have, on this very page, a discussion demonstrating a lack of consensus. You think you're in the majority because you don't hear anyone else. You aren't listening to anything or looking around you. When I proposed removing the details about "journalistic integrity" from the lead if you would just let me say there are concerns of misogyny instead of, "Yes, totally misogyny is the thing here and that's the objective truth", you accused me of pro-GamerGate bias. This is how deep your head is buried. I could remove the only consistent stance GamerGate has expressed from the lead of the article, and you'd think I was biased because I didn't call them misogynists. And you get away with this! You openly express this attitude and get congratulated for your patience! It's disgusting, honestly. YellowSandals (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I mean think about it. You gathered up, what. Forty names? Forty names to ban for being against the "consensus"? Wikipedia could ban forty users, or it could ban Ryūlóng. YellowSandals (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That's because every single one of those names on the list had done nothing on Wikipedia in the past several months other than engage in this content dispute that has been fostering off of the website in that same period of time. I expressly omitted editors that I knew were on Wikipedia and edited articles other than anything involved in this petty dispute. And I've lost my patience with having to see the same arguments on the talk page day in and day out that the article is biased because of the word "misogyny" being used in the lead. The constant complaints about the adjective being used to describe the length the misogyny has existed and so on and so forth. In this thread, Javier2005 wanted us (that is Wikipedia) to expressly identify the people being quoted in a reliable source because he thought that the summarization and paraphrasing that I had done to write the section was not clear enough, when the identities of the quoted people were not given in the source. He constantly asked "who" these people were when it was clearly stated in the sentence long before there were any attempts to try to address his concerns, but he kept going at it and demanding a clarification for something that did not exist. No one should have to sit through this but volunteers like myself, Masem, Tarc, NorthBySouthBaranof, TaraInDC, Dreadstar, TheRedPenOfDoom, The Devil's Advocate, Tutelary have to sit through this and try to explain to editors like you how Wikipedia is supposed to work rather than the grand plans you have to make this page in your image rather than the actual neutrality that Wikipedia stands for.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You keep getting new accounts coming in to tell you that "misogyny" is a negatively charged word to be throwing around in supposedly factual statements, and, as I understand, you're mad because they're too dumb to realize the editor with the most weight isn't going to listen. And this is what's really tragic. They keep popping in because they think Wikipedia is supposed to be really open and objective, that the website will respect them, and you want them to wise up to the fact that it isn't and it won't. At least not now. YellowSandals (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If 50 sources that aren't Kotaku, Polygon, and others say that the acts of a movement that has attacked women for being women and ignored men unless they bothered to get in their way of women as "misogynistic" then Wikipedia can present that same information. If several entities share the same opinion then that's generally a consensus and no number of Gamergaters who feel that they are being slighted can really change that unless they actually make a decent name for themselves in the media.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

100% wrong. We can present that information with statements to be that it is what the bulk of press sites have stated, but we cannot state this as a fact in Wikipedia's voice, because no one has produced conclusive evidence that would meet a rigorous analysis (like a scientific review or a legal decision), so it remains a supposition. This article doesn't quite say that, but is toeing that line to a point of being a problem. We cannot act like the press's opinion is "right" and the means to base the rest of the article. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There have been threats against pro GamerGate people too. This article seems extremely biased for one side

One writer was sent a syringe with an unknown substance for instance, as reported in TechCrunch and other outlets.(see http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue-with-2-sides/) This article seems extremely biased toward one side.Sy9045 (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

An event from a month ago that is not mentioned in any other reliable sources is not worthy to be mentioned here. And this claim of "bias" is because no undue weight is to be given to a minority and fringe viewpoint.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? You've shown blatant biases throughout this article. It's quite sickening. Here's another "reliable" source which comes straight from Kotaku that mentions the syringe incident: http://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/10/another-woman-in-gaming-flees-home-following-death-threats/. Milo Yiannopoulos's Wikipedia page also includes the syringe incident so I don't know why it's not allowed to be included here. The more I edit Wikipedia, the more I see how the political biases from editors like you are destroying Wikipedia's credibility.Sy9045 (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

we can't do much because right now ryulong "owns" the article, and admins do nothing. Javier2005 (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The syringe allegedly sent to Yiannopoulos is a footnote in most of these rather than a focus.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

So it's a "footnote" because it doesn't fit the narrative that pro GamerGate people are full of misoygonistic and violent "nerds" and anti GamerGate people are the helpless victims who can't do anything wrong, correct? Is this the narrative you're going for?Sy9045 (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No. It's a footnote because there's no article by any major news agency that describes any of the claims made by Yiannopoulos on this one event that happened a month ago, not to mention we do not really discuss Yiannopoulos or his partcipation in GamerGate on the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC).

You cannot be serious. Up above, you say "Kotaku" is a "reliable" source and cite it repeatedly. Now when I show you a Kotaku source that cites the syringe incident which runs contrary to this little narrative you're pushing, you now claim the source is unreliable. The mental gymnastics required to keep up with you would qualify me for the 2016 Summer Olympics.Sy9045 (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Kotaku spends three sentences in its massive piece on Brianna Wu fleeing from her home to say "Milo Yiannopolous tweeted that someone sent him a syringe". This is the issue with WP:UNDUE. Plus, most people have been claiming that Kotaku isn't a reliable source because they are the focus of GamerGate's ire. They can't say that there was no journalistic ethical misconduct on behalf of Nathan Grayson and Zoe Quinn, but they can say that Milo Yiannopolous was threatened (when it's been documented he and his website have made things up in the past). Which is it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

But you say so yourself that Kotaku cites pro GamerGaters as being misogynistic and so we must include that message in the article. Why are you now backtracking when Kotaku cites something that runs contrary to your beliefs? Shouldn't you be objective? Multiple sources from TechCrunch to Kotaku have cited the syringe incident. Milo's Wikipedia page includes the syringe incident. I don't know anything about Milo's 'fake' past, which seems quite conspiratorial already, but why are you the one to imply Milo's deceptions when you offer zero proof? What if someone claimed the death threats made against female writers were faked and so we must omit that information from the article? How would that make you feel? What is your motive in erasing the syringe incident from "your" article?Sy9045 (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The BBC, CNN, Washngton Post, New York Times, New Yorker, New York magazine, etc. also say that there's misogyny in Gamergate. Now only TechCrunch and Kotaku (Australia) have added minimal corrections to their pieces that report Milo's syringe. A syringe that he said he ultimately threw out rather than give to the police. It's a minimal footnote that you want to give undue weight by mentioning it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

What Wikipedia guideline are you following exactly? Even RealClearPolitics, which is cited by BBC, CNN, Washington Post, New York Times frequently, mentions the syringe incident (see http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/10/09/the_gender_games_sex_lies_and_videogames_124244.html). I've checked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources, and it seems to me like you are making up your own arbitrary rules on what constitutes a "reliable" source instead of relying on Wikipedia's standards. Shouldn't we rely on Wikipedia's guidelines and not yours?Sy9045 (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying that these are not reliable sources. The TechCrunch piece is already in the article. I'm not personally sure if RealClearPolitics meets WP:RS. What I am saying is that the minimal mentions of the syringe in these now three sources you've pointed out to me are single and very small aspects of the whole of the news articles. Listing it on Wikipedia would violate WP:UNDUE, which I have quoted multiple times.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Significant coverage in multiple sources is only a requirement for creating articles, not including information at all. One would be enough for a small, discreet mention; I can't see how three wouldn't just because most of the harassment covered by reliable sources has been in the opposite direction. This isn't painting the pro-Gamergate people as good or anything, only pointing out that they haven't been the aggressors 100% of the time. Tezero (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Fully agree.Sy9045 (talk) 06:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Please, oh please, read Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight again. As it stands, there is **no** citation of the syringe incident when Wikipedia's guidelines clearly state that there should be at least be some mention of it (since the incident has been cited in a handful of reliable sources already). Specifically, see this guideline: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." There is no "weight" for the syringe incident as it stands in the article, when there should at least be "some" weight according to Wikipedia's policies.Sy9045 (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

A footnote/correction/update in two pieces and a single sentence in another of questionable reliability to support inclusion of one fact to go "look at what anti-Gamergate did" is WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You are making up your own rules arbitrarily by defining what's "questionable reliability" instead of sticking to Wikipedia's guidelines, as I've cited above. You claim that there is too little "weight" and decide that the article should include no weight, when Wikipedia's guidelines clearly mention otherwise. You have shown a clear bias and I think you should not be allowed to edit this article anymore.Sy9045 (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I am calmly explaining to you that WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, not rules I've made up, do not allow the mention of this extremely minimal part of GamerGate because no one else is talking about it and making a big deal out of it. Only three websites that could be considered reliable sources are reporting on this thing that takes up one or two sentences in the whole of their coverage, and therefore saying it happened on this page is giving undue weight to a non-issue. And I am simply not personally sure if RealClearPolitics is normally or could be used as a reliable source in this instance.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

When a handful of reliable sources report on the incident, there must be some mention of it. You are defining what's "undue" and "fringe" based on your own definitions. Multiple reliable sources reporting on the incident does not constitute "fringe". Did you read Wikipedia's guidelines on what constitutes fringe? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories - see: "Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources") There are multiple independent reliable sources that mention the incident. It's a shame that we're even having this argument.Sy9045 (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources in question do not spend any considerable time discussing this aspect, unlike the other sources that focus almost entirely on the other claims that this article covers. Saying that this mattersin the long run, when even the subject of the attack does not, would be giving this one instance of anything undue weight. That is my answer for you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've got to say, this has gotten to be wholly ridiculous. Ryulong is now using the fact that the majority of press has a negative opinion of Gamergate to block inclusion of any piece of information that does not fit an "anti-Gamergate" narrative, in this case the threats against Milo Yiannopoulos, cited by Kotaku, among others, a source that's being used as a cite for other entries in this article. I fail to see how mention of the incident constitutes WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUEWEIGHT (mere mention of this is "undue weight"?). At this point, I think there's a certain degree of gaming the system with arguments as to what constitutes a "reliable source", especially with regard to having a low bar for acceptance for items Ryolong and similarly-leaning editors want included, and a wholly different standard for items these people want blocked. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You're all going to have to lay off the ownership claims in regard to Ryulong. As it happens, they're responding here, and they've been pretty active. But there are many, many editors at work here, in addition to admins overlooking what's happening here--in case you hadn't noticed the Discretionary Sanctions warnings. Now, Sy9045 and Javier2005, you are going to have to adopt a much less personal tone, and you're going to have to stop doing this whole "your" article thing, or you risk being blocked for contributing to an unworkable atmosphere. Ryulong, I believe I don't have to tell you that I think you also, on occasion, need to take it down a notch, though I commend you on keeping your cool so far. Drmies (talk) 05:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You can use "he" for me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Please, please, please have editors stick to Wikipedia's guidelines and not make up their own. This is all I'm asking. The biases are rampant and information is selectively omitted or included, which I feel is ruining Wikipedia's credibility.Sy9045 (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

How the policies and guidelines apply is, in the first instance, to be discussed here--if there's doubt about them. But even if you feel that way, you'll have to address them in a non-accusatory way. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if it comes out that way. I feel that Ryulong should not be allowed to edit this article anymore because he is ignoring Wikipedia's guidelines and making up his own rules. There is a clear bias. Please read my discussion with him above.Sy9045 (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

uhhhh, have you actually read the rules WP:BALASPS you claim Ryulong is violating? because, you know, they are attempting to apply them, and you are attempting to un-apply them. and people who continually tendentiously edit against what the policies actually say are subject to discretionary sanctions banning them from the gamergate topic area. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

ummmm, have you actually read my lengthy debate with Ryulong above about undue weight and how I repeatedly cited Wikipedia's policies, or did you just completely dismiss/ignore our discussion?Sy9045 (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

yes, i see how you keep citing them and claiming that a tiny fraction of the non mainstream sources making passing mentions of an event demonstrate a requirement that and event is mentioned in our article -which is either a signal that you didnt actually read the policies or an indication that you have a complete misunderstanding of their content . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that there's any Wikipedia policy that dictates that any information is required to be present anywhere - I suppose all of our core policies could be satisfied vacuously - but I also don't see a good reason not to include this information. Sure, it complicates the narrative that Gamergate is universally the aggressive party, but that's the sender's fault for doing so (assuming this is the only such incident, a possibility I find astronomically unlikely), not ours for covering it. Life is complicated. Tezero (talk) 07:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There's actually plenty of harassment of Gamergate supporters recorded in RSs, which I've collected on this Talk page, but for some reason that's not included the article. There are plenty of topics I've collated on the Talk page that aren't included in the article. I'm not touching it. I don't want to have to fight people, and I worry any changes I make will just be used an excuse to get me banned, so somebody else will have to do it. If Wikipedia actually wants this article to be up to scratch, they'd do well to ban all current and past editors from this article and let others take over, because clearly the people now contributing to it are doing a very poor job. Willhesucceed (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You say all this but do not give the evidence to back it up. Right now in this thread repost all of the sources you've posted to this talk page explaining that pro-Gamergate supporters have faced harassment from anti-Gamergate supporters because I only frankly found one version that is came from a neutral party and not some heavily biased pro-Gamergate claptrap as is wont by you all and incorporated it into the article already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I have this same fear about this article. I worry that, even with justified sourcing and a neutral tone, any editing that adds something to the GamerGate narrative or even anything that detracts from the anti-GG narrative will be reverted and may potentially result in punitive action. Some have been extremely patient with the new editors who haven't had a lot of experience - the rules are formal and they aren't learned instantly. I trust it when those people say a source might be fringe or inadequate, and I'm getting pretty good at recognizing the process thanks to them. But regardless, I have been consistently seeing how having a certain amount of veteran weight can allow one editor to plant themselves down and refuse to budge, cooperate, or even take a respectful tone towards other editors. YellowSandals (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Tossing thinly veiled insults is not allowed. In addition, this is the incorrect forum for discussing behavior issues. You will need to take those to a proper forum such as WP:AN / WP:ANI or better yet, politely discuss your concerns on the the users talk page (supplying evidence is a necessary prerequisite if you choose to go to WP:AN.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems the consensus says "yes" to include; I also believe Ryulong's arguments against it are weak. I think much the reason why information like this is treated as "fringe" is because every time a new piece turns up, it is discredited for the reason that it doesn't fit with the rest of the article's contents. Well, we have to start somewhere, don't we? At the very minimum, is there really a problem with including such reports in a footnote?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Where the hell are you seeing anything that approaches "consensus"????? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You can call me out if my numbers are wrong but I count 4:2 for inclusion (including me) and 3 implicitly for including from Javier2005, Willhesucceed, and Yellowsandals. It is so minor to simply state something to the effect of "Journalist and Gamergate supporter Milo Yanna-something reported that he had received a mail package containing a syringe filled with an unknown substance." No opinions, no subjectivity, doesn't contradict anything in the article, and is not contentious or libelous in the slightest to warrant a large number of RSes. This talk page is filled with rationales such as "this article seems impartial because there are no reliable sources discussing Gamergate in a sympathetic/favorable light" quickly followed by "we can't have these sympathetic/favorable statements from reliable sources because they'll seem out of place".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's been in the article for 12 hours so stop arguing over it FFS. I still don't think it belongs because the sourcing is shit but whatever.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, but I just wanted to see if anyone would have a problem if I tried integrating it in the article. Thanks for replying.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

In the near future, there might be reason to cover harassment directed at people using the gamergate hashtag. If Anonymous does dive in and the media begin to cover it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Columbia Journalism Review

http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/gawker_bullying.php - Gawker and bullying http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/gamergate.php?page=all - Gamergate

Willhesucceed (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

2nd one is already used in the article. Do you have a suggestion for how to use the first one? The article already discusses the bullying tweet, and most of the article doesn't appear to be about Gamergate. Strongjam (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Gawker is toxic to advertisers

http://adland.tv/adnews/gawker-toxic-brands-who-partner-them/1291467968#7SJBLOuUTu9WRhpZ.99

http://adage.com/article/digital/gamergate-puts-advertisers-a-bad-spot/295555/

Willhesucceed (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Are either considered RS? If so I think they'd warrant a short sentence. Halfhat (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Adland is a community weblog, so I think it fails as WP:SPS. Adage might be useable though. Strongjam (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You should look into the pedigree of that weblog and who runs it. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Eh, actually, don't. Don't know why I still bother coming here. I'll rectify that fault. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing against Dabitch, but unless a secondary source weights it for us we should ignore it. It's not up to use to decide who is notable. Strongjam (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's often said that journalists should not give a shit about their advertisers and that GamerGate. This is the crux of actual ethics in journalism. This is why Jeff Gerstmann was fired from Eurogamer after his not gleaming review of Kane & Lynch. Advertisers had too much power.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

He was terminated from Gamespot not Eurogamer. Related this WaPo article makes the connection that this type of action helps to create the sort of atmosphere where the writers are beholden small motivated set of their readership. "Should similar groups mobilize around other types of news, and should advertisers be persuaded by then, the possibilities for chilling speech are pretty grim. Operation Disrespectful Nod is advocating for a future where news organizations only print stories that mollify their readers." Not sure if that's worth adding to the section on the operation though. Strongjam (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

AdAge is an RS as a major publication in the world of advertizing, however, when I read that article, I saw little that could be used - it basically summarizes everything on the Intel/Adobe/Gawker stuff we have, and then is more of advice tells companies that advertize that it's better not get involved at all w/in GG. I'm not sure how we can really work in that last point, unless we get more sources that talk about how the general approach/opinion of major businesses in reference to GG should be handled. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we remove or shortern the ammount on the "End of Gamer Identity" angle?

I haven't seen anything in while take that angle, I think a paragraph would maybe be more suitable. Halfhat (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it the whole reason Operation whatever Nod exists?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

In that case it should probably just be background in the ODN section. I still don't think it needs 3 paragraphs. Halfhat (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's still a major aspect because the change of what is a "gamer" was a point of discussion until all of the new death threats.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It also ties in a bit with the rationale of why GG exists, that some have stated that the changing demographic has changed what it means to be a gamer, and thus the "death" of the normal stereotype. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing much of that angle really either. It's largely just misogyny and journalism I'm seeing. Halfhat (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely in the sources, but I'd have to review to pinpoint it. But it definitely is tied to the the idea that core male gamers are feeling their identity threatened by the changed demographics that has been contributed to a reason why this has come out. (At least, to put it one way, it's a "giving them the benefit of the doubt" type reason that has been proposed). --MASEM (t) 17:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That's mostly coming from opinion pieces though, right? Do we really need to say more than "some journalists wrote articles on the how the meaning of being a gamer is evolving" or something like that? As of right now the gamer identity angle takes up a pretty huge part of the article, especially the background section. What defines a gamer is probably best left to the gamer article. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. It's far to much for how much of the discussion is now. The point largely seems to have been dropped and to make it a major part of the backround plus 3 paragraphs is insane. Halfhat (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

They have been talking a lot about shifting demographics and the gamer identity. The "Gamers are dead" article is the most well-known one because it seems to be what caused Intel to pull out of the site that ran it. However, it's been part of the general discussion in a number of pieces, whether they're saying gamers are scared of losing their identity or if they're saying that Anita and other critics aren't real gamers. Somners' video analysis of the subject addresses it directly, going over the numbers and statistics being used to talk about whether or not male audiences, who tend to like lady butts, are still dominating the market enough to explain why there's so many lady butts in games.

This has continually lead into the misogyny thing. In the most basic distillation, most of these articles keep saying that men no longer dominate gaming and are misogynistic to act like they do, expressed with terms that vary in harshness. YellowSandals (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That said, this article needs a lot of trimming, so if one paragraph conveys the same meaning as the current three, then I'll throw in a vote to trim. YellowSandals (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of gamers being dead, given that ALL mainstream gaming sources including Kotaku, Polygon, Gamasutra, Ars Technica, all of them reliable, say gamers are dead, we should go to the Gamer article and just state in the lead "Also they're dead". I can't believe not even a single mention of "misogyny" is there given that all mainstream sources say gamers are all misogynists Loganmac (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Weren't all of them critiques on the exclusivity and/or stereotype of the gamer being dead? And you are really stretching what the sources say. Reliable sources say that there are highly visible misogynistic elements in the Gamergate movement and not that "all gamers are misogynists".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Article protected again?

This is getting ridiculous. There is no way that we can work on this article if it keeps getting protected because some new POV pushing editor comes onto Wikipedia to argue that "there's a bias because I feel this negatively describes me I mean the pro-Gamergate point of view". Protecting it for three weeks now? is going to cause as much damage as the previous 2 week protection was when a lot of shit hit the fan and we could not actively change the article to cover it because of he constant bickerng going on on the talk page as a result of the constant intrusions by Redditors with accounts they just remembered that they had, particularly when Loganmac keeps making Reddit threads on the actions he disagrees with on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged Dreadstar to give a fuller reason, as when I look at the history, I'm not seeing anything that screams out immediately as a problem that I could easily see as edit warring; there might be other reasons though. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a report on WP:AN3 for the page. Might be something related to that. For the record I think most of those reverts are valid. All those silly 'who' and 'citation needed' templates are pretty much just vandalism Strongjam (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Usually if that's the reason, the AN3 closing admin will indicate that. That might be the case, that's why I'm checking. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The report at AN3 (Tutelary reporting me for actions taken over 12 hours ago now) should not be a reason that we shut this page down, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• You folks edit war and either the article gets protected or some of you get blocked - or both. I'll let AN3 sort out any potential blocks, but I'm not letting this article be disrupted by edit warring. Is that 'full' enough Masem? If not, then feel free to take it to WP:RFPP or try to convince me the edit warring is over - even though there's an active AN3 report on this article. Dreadstar ☥ 18:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  But we can't keep protecting the page for weeks at a time. This is a current event that is drawing in a lot of meatpuppetry and general disruption from offsite because they count the one word in this article as a direct attack on who they are. And that's not an "active AN3 report". It's stale by over 12 hours and only being pushed forward by a disruptive user who is out to get me despite not knowing anything about the rules he is saying I've violated.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  Just FYI, they're active until they're closed, you don't get to make the judgment, admins do. Dreadstar ☥ 19:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  Actually, we can. if something is so important that it needs to be added to the article, then put up an Edit request. And I'd suggest to you that you not engage in edit warring. Dreadstar ☥ 19:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  Having to revert multiple users on multiple subjects that were all under discussion on the talk page, including a user who insisted that we violate BLP by identifying anonymous authors of content cited in a reliable source, should not result in me being in any form of trouble.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  There are very few exemptions to 3RR, they're listed at WP:3RRNO. If you're claiming an exemption, then put it clearly in the edit summary and on the talk page, and then get help from an admin or at ANI. Dreadstar ☥ 19:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• (Ec)I'm just asking because it is not clear where the edit warring is from just looking at the history page. (When it has been protected in the past due to edit warring, it was clear as day). Obviously, yes, there's going to be tons of edits that will be conflicting changes, but that's not the same as outright reverts, and that's not readily apparent. There's 14 "undid"s over the last 100 edits/24hr, but not back and forth >1RR type things, which is why full prot (without considering the AN3 issue in place) seems overkill at the moment. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  I'll be happy to unprotect as soon as the AN3 is closed. Dreadstar ☥ 19:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've closed out the AN3 as stale, no reverts in 15 hours or so; and I've changed protection on the article to allow auto-confirmed editing. No more edit warring, or else. Dreadstar ☥ 19:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

IMO editors need to be given a bit of leeway in keeping this article in check. Gamergate is being warred over all across the internet at this point, and the tetchy socks, SPA, and sleeper accounts have identified this article as their last venue to get their fading/failing point-of-view out into the open. Tarc (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to help as best I can within policy. To that end, it would be helpful if everyone's edits and comments were super-clean, very clear and well documented, with appropriate escalations. But I know there's a lot of frustration on these articles. Dreadstar ☥ 19:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've suggested earlier that if we could all self-impose ourselves on a 1RR-type limits, and evoking BRD more (unless we're in the clear obvious EW exceptions), that would help not require any further protection. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Seconding Tarc. This article is going to need a LOT more admin attention if regular editors are being disallowed from reverting disruptive edits. TBH lack of decent admin attention is what brought us to this point in the first place. Artw (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, this Wikipedia article is not Yavin IV facing down the threat of a planet-killing Deathstar. There is not a last refuge of rebel scum trying to sink the only shot they have before they get wiped from the face of the universe forever. It is not a battle of good versus evil when numerous people are losing their jobs due to the ugliness of the controversy, an involved website is bleeding ad partners, and the majority of accusations wobble crazily across a spectrum of ideological viewpoints. Like it or not, in spite of people saying the controversy is dying, it's been going on for months and is still going. I agree with one of the previous posters that the article should be re-written, but this time with a minimalistic approach and something of an objective historical timeline. People with no stake what-so-ever in the debate have been remarking on how confusing and thoroughly useless this article is. If you think GamerGate is dead, you're obviously not seeing the entire conflict. YellowSandals (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Evacuate? In our moment of triumph. I think you overestimate their chances. Sorry I couldn't help myself. Halfhat (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Dreadstar has no relation to Star Wars or the Deathstar, as I make clear on my user page. Dreadstar ☥ 21:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, but see, that's exactly what a cleverer Deathstar would say! "Deathstar? No, no. This is a... satellite. For television. Please do not run or shoot projectiles down our air vents." YellowSandals (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh it is indeed not dying and still going on; firmly and decisively into the misogynist/harassment camp. The dying/going refers to the "but ethics", which is slowly winding down to a footnote. We follow the sources. Tarc (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You, Ryulong, and North have been telling me non-stop that GamerGate never stood for anything but misogyny and that nobody worth referencing thinks otherwise. You're not admitting that there was, at some point, maybe some chance that GamerGate exists for reasons beyond intentional immorality? You're not saying calling GamerGate misogynistic is an opinion or anything capable of rising or falling, I hope. Not after all the fighting on that topic. YellowSandals (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Here you are wrong. None of us have said this. We have simply been saying that the preponderance of reliable sources point out that Gamergate is known for the misogynistic attacks rather than its desire to root out corruption in video games journalism because there are very little sources out there that give it the time of day. For that reason, Wikipedia cannot cover it in the extent that you or others want it to.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

So is misogyny not a neutral word? You keep saying that all the news articles use this slur, so Wikipedia has to use it too. Directly, in Wikipedia's voice. Previously, you argued that there was no debate that this slur was accurate and applied, objectively, to GamerGate. If it's just kind of a vague slur, it seems weird to use it to say that's what the whole controversy is about, doesn't it? I assume if it's factual enough to state in Wikipedia's voice, surely it's not an opinion that could rise or fall depending on the public's perspective of both the word and the context the word is used in. YellowSandals (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

How is "misogyny" a slur? How in any sense of sanity can you be making yourself to be a victim here?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

What. You just call people "misogynist", "sinner", "degenerate", or other negative things, and that's not a slur on those people? Is this seriously where our disconnect is at? You don't think that "misogynist" is a slur? YellowSandals (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

When did society go downhill so far that telling people they hate or disrespect women wasn't seen as a bad thing. And for that matter, Ryūlóng, what is the deal with female supporters of GamerGate? They got the "internalized misogyny" or what? YellowSandals (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that our resident SPAs are not testing the waters with repeated changes to the lede. Artw (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit for discussion: Death threats against Sarkeesian and Wu

This sentence is problematic:

Though she had spoken before at other events in the wake of Gamergate which had received similar threats, she opted to cancel when the school could not assure her safety under existing Utah state weapons laws.

It seems to be saying that Sarkeesian spoke at other events where she had received similar threats, and that those events were after September 2014 but before the scheduled talk at USU. This is not supported by the references. She did receive similar threats before the Game Developers Choice Awards in March 2014. Also the summary of her cancellation is not precise. I propose the following alternate text:

School officials said the threat was "similar to other threats that Sarkeesian has received in the past."<ref name=AnitaUSUCNN /> She opted to cancel because the school could not comply with her requests for additional gun restrictions at the event.

I am not flagging this for administrator attention yet because this is a controversial topic. Does anyone disagree with the changes above? DPRoberts534 (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so the article is no longer protected. Still waiting for feedback before I make the change. DPRoberts534 (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I could have sworn the source had a quote from her directly that mentioned previous threats after August but can't find it. That's better to change until I can relocate or confirm. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think there was a threat to the Game Dev Awards that we can cite.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The lines' in the proposed changes, here's a source [11]. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Done, and thanks. DPRoberts534 (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

New York mag on meeting with GGers.

[12] Haven't had chance to parse. --MASEM (t) 19:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Despite the tone it does a pretty good job of explaining the GamerGate position. Nice find. Halfhat (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's more about 8chan dwellers and the no true Scotsman defense, not really seeing much new. Tarc (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's reporting in mainstream source, so no need to wave it off. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

How about adding something like "One concern expressed by a supporter of GamerGate was that videogames could become "watered down" making reference to pop music at the time."Halfhat (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ethics seems largely absent in favour of fighting "SJWs". Artw (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Article suffers from a degree of Recentism

I think this article suffers from a degree of Recent-ism.

This is a common flaw in articles about current events and issues. It is hard to know what aspects of the topic are really important to mention, and which are more trivial (and can be glossed over or cut entirely). However, as time passes this usually becomes a bit clearer. Now that Gamergate is a few months old... I would encourage editors to seriously consider a complete re-write... to re-focus the article so it takes a more historical perspective. Indeed, I suspect that about half of the article could probably be cut... or at least seriously trimmed down. Blueboar (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd wait until it's either became over or at least a more steady situation, it's still changing a lot. Still I agree there's a lot that should be cut. Halfhat (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The thing with Gamergate is that it is a current event that for the past several weeks had very high profile events take place. Now that there's a lull we should be able to properly write about what had happened.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Intro revert stuff

To stop an edit war lets just talk about it here. For reverting the length one I feel this article could do with some general trimming that's all see below. My issue is with the use of calling the ethics claims "widely discredited" this is far to charged especially so early on which amplifies this. It really seems to take a side which Wikipedia shouldn't. Halfhat (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources describe it as such so Wikipedia should describe it as such.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter. Wikipedia doesn't have opinions, if all the sources declared Lincoln the greatest president ever, Wikipedia wouldn't hold that view. Halfhat (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia would remark that historians consider him as such but not necessarily make that opinion, but the fact that the claims have been discredited and disproven is not a subjective statement unless you're talking to someone moving the goal posts.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

But it's still opinion, and discredited implies agreement. Show me how it was objectively disproven because doubt such it a thing is possible. Halfhat (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If you've got a set of reliable sources that say something other than what we've got in the article please bring them to the table, otherwise you are beating a dead horse. Artw (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That argument makes no sense, what's being discussed is the NPOV policy. Saying something is discreditted takes a side. Halfhat (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We should not make it appear there are legitimate ethics concerns where no evidence of any have been produced, neither should we lend creditibility to the long debunked claims against Quinn. Artw (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Once again, this has gotten to be absolutely ridiculous. Calling the ethics claims "widely discredited" is blatant POV pushing and goes against everything that WP:NPOV stands for. While I understand that Wikipedia simply reflects what is reported in the mainstream media, and that the mainstream media is overwhelmingly negative on the subject of Gamergate, it nevertheless goes against Wikipedia's core principals to actively try to reproduce bias in the media and public opinion just because it happens to be widely held. I'll point out that Creationism isn't considered an intellectually respectable position outside of religious fundamentalist circles, yet Wikipedia still manages to produce an article on that topic which is not full of invective. Why can't the same be done here? Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the original allegations about Quinn and Grayson are dismissed as mistaken (to put it charitably) in pretty much every first-rate source that references them, when we refer to the allegations we must also make clear that they are considered false. Failing to do so, especially where the material first occurs in the article, is a serious BLP issue. If widely discredited is disliked, I would suggest specious as a more nuanced alternative. CIreland (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There are some additional allegations circulating forums having to do with Quinn and ethics, but none can be repeated without adequate sourcing because, like many accusations on both sides, there are few specific proofs of anything. A great deal of expressed accusations (from both sides, mind) have to do with circumstantial evidence, which can easily be false, with several allegations having been proven false. The ethics concerns have been broad, with some being discussed and addressed within articles about GamerGate. Though not specifically focused, the issue of ethics in game journalism has been consistently spoken of and remarked on as something motivating GamerGate. YellowSandals (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

well, to be more specific, it has been consistently spoken of and remarked on as a false cover used by GamerGaters to attempt to misdirect and hide from the harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNDUE, WP:RS and WP:BLP for why treating the claims of GamerGate against Quinn as credible is not acceptable for this article. Artw (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The Gamergate movement's self-descriptor as being about "journalistic ethics" makes no specific claims whatsoever about Quinn. (In fact, very little focus about Gamergate since September has had anything to do with Quinn.) Since you haven't actually addressed a single concern and made specious BLP and undue weight claims to defend what really comes down to some pretty blatant POV pushing, I will be reverting this again. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

One more note - the language of "claims about journalistic ethics" - note the word "claims" - already represents neutral language. Once again, I think it's more than a stretch to say that just because the mainstream media coverage of Gamergate is hostile, that therefore the Wikipedia article must adopt a strongly anti-Gamergate tone to reflect that. WP:UNDUE does not negate WP:NPOV. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The events started with Quinn and the alleged "ethics violation" that took place with her personal life. Those have been discredited and there has not been one other feasible act of corruption uncovered by the movement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

At this point, your bias and extremely creative use of BLP and Undue Weight claims are self evident. First, the "journalistic ethics" claim makes no specific claims whatsoever concerning Quinn, and it's a bad-faith use of WP:BLP to claim this article somehow requires a statement that Gamergate's self-description is "widely discredited". I also will point out that you are wholly ignoring WP:NPOV, and are using rather creative means to make an end-run around it. There is a report on you currently for edit warring, which I will definitely add to, because at this point, this is what you are doing. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That is because we have had to sterilize the lead paragraph of anything resembling anything. There are no valid claims of corruption in video games journalism uncovered by Gamergate, whether it involves Zoe Quinn or not, so therefore their claims have been discredited.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It was completely improper to use that language in the lead, because the video game journalist community has agreed that there are ethics issues, including those related to the specific ones the proGG had, and these are things that they would like to discuss in a non-combative manner with proGG. And if they weren't issues or discredited issues, sites like Escapist, etc wouldn't have had to change their sponsorship program. The most neutral way to say it that follows the sources is that issues have been considered, neither saying they were proven true or false, and getting into the specifics in the body. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

They acknowledge there are problems, but they're not the problems Gamergate has been fighting. And the only reason they changed anything was because of the vitriol.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Citation needd of the claim they changed it due to vitriol. --MASEM (t) 01:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the whole thing about Gamergate yelling at Kotaku et al was because of the indie game crowdfunding issue?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You really are oversimplifying a lot here. Halfhat (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

length discussion

I feel this article is getting too long, and thus we should try to avoid anything long winded wording. It's still quite a niche article and is already really pretty long and still growing. Halfhat (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTPAPER.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

My point was that it is already big and if it became more widely reported, which seems at least likely, with the way things are going it could become insane. Halfhat (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

At some point, the article will be further summarized to remove some larger quotes and such. But there's no real problem yet.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no real length issues, and should this continue to gain coverage as the same pace, it will be a matter of triming back to the more fundamental pieces. --MASEM (t) 00:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

seriously, wtf

[13]. Please explain how this edit is not grossly insulting to the human beings that are proGG supporters but not part of the harassment, and how this does not twist the sourcing to make the antiGG side look like saints? This unilateral push to fully discredit the proGG side when this has not yet been done in RSes is completely against policy. --MASEM (t) 01:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's accurate to what's happened. Enough sugar coating already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Because this is what we have to deal with when the article wasn't even at the state it is right now. Accounts that haven't been used in nearly a year going "look at this guy being mean because he won't let me skew the article into my own POV". Why I keep getting trapped in these stupid edit wars. I was wrong. The article should be locked down again. And then we weed out the users who are not here to properly adhere to the rules and regulations of this website and instead use it to further the external dispute.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No, they aren't doing that, they are editing to remove your biased POV. You obviously have little care for who you insult on the proGG side, creating a bias that you shouldn't be editing this article with. What is changed is not accurate to the sources - the mainstream sources do not describe the event with that much bile or hatred. And we do sugar coat as to stay remain neutral and clinical. --MASEM (t) 01:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

One editor added a link to a blog calling itself the "Gamergate Wiki" that had was full of the sex scandal narrative and then he began edit warring over the use of the citation of Kotaku's refutation. My actions in all of the situations on this page are not due to a biased POV so don't you start accusing me either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing the SPS - that's fine. Rewriting to accuss the entirity of the proGG for harassment and misogyny when we have sources that affirm it is likely only a subset is bogus. And yes, your actions clearly speak to a bias that you refuse to even consider the possibility that anything said by proGGers could even be true. WP doesn't evaluate statements to determine if they are true or not (that's OR), we summarize sources, and the best mainstream sources do not insult the proGG like you are doing; add in WP:OWN behavior, as well as the extra-ordinary factor that your actions here are influencing people offsite to participate, and that's probably a good side you should leave this alone for a while. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't rewrite it. And there's been barely anything done by anyone with a pro-GG POV to constructively edit the article. It's been constant cries of bias and POV when everyone who has been active on Wikipedia and responding to your RFC have recognized that the article as it stands is either fine or it's giving too much credence to the pro-GG side when that is not covered in reliable sources. And what one group of people thinks of me off-site is only my problem. If I can deal with /m/ thinking I'm the scourge of all the shitty Kamen Rider Wikias and every anon who uses a translation featured on this website, I can deal with KotakuInAction and /gg/ finding my old shitty geocities website, as has already happened it seems.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Your attitude here is creating a vicious circle that will only get worse if nothing changes in the approach this article takes and/or your approach. Your actions are driving editors to come here in earnest ways to try to fix this. You report them as SPAs, and then keep editing this further away from those views, creating more interested persons in coming to fix this. That's an extra-ordinary case of disruption that you do have control over - by stepping back from the article for a time. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

So now you're victim blaming?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm pointing out that you have said yourself you're well aware that SPAs are coming here because of you, so you should be acting to try to avoid that. --MASEM (t) 02:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No. People have been coming after me on social media because of what I've said here. People are coming here because Loganmac keeps making threads on Reddit complaining when things aren't going his way. You're based Masem now and Reddit thinks I'm bipolar and/or more than one person.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a link? Retartist (talk) 07:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's front page of /r/KotakuInAction. Just ctrl+F for Masem.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What annoys me is that stuff about us gets posted and we may not know about it. Can someone ping me next time this happens? Retartist (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, it is quite clear it is *you* who are not following Wikiepdia's rules concerning NPOV. Yes, the majority of the mainstream media have a negative opinion of Gamergate. That most certainly does not mean that it is incumbent upon editors to therefore create an article with a negative tone about Gamergate. If anything, WP:NPOV means we should be producing an article that is *descriptive*, not *evaluative*. Save the evaluation and editorializing for the "Media Response" section, where, indeed, it can be pointed out that the majority of media sources have evaluated the phenomenon quite negatively. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"look at this guy being mean because he won't let me skew the article into my own POV". Way to assume bad faith based on no evidence whatsoever. I'd like to see an article that adheres to WP:NPOV, not one that in any way favors the Gamergate movement.Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The rules are WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS. Because positive coverage of the supporters of the Gamergate movement does not really seem to exist in reliable sources, we cannot spend much time on the article covering it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You miss the point. There's ample opportunity not to editorialize at all, yet you insist on giving the article a slant toward anti-Gamergate *opinion* just because that happens to be how much of the press is spinning it. WP:NPOV means avoidance of injecting editorial opinion to the greatest degree possible. You have absolutely not adhered to this. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This is how things are covered in reliable sources that aren't the dreaded Gawker or Polygon websites. The fact that it upsets people that their movement is seen this way does not mean that Wikipedia should be forced to sterilize coverage compared to every source it uses. The problem does not lie with Wikipedia or its users. It lies with the movement itself and how it presents itself to the world, which is a haphazard and uncentralized way that makes it impossible for anyone to determine what they really want.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding biased language and blatant editorializing is not "sterilizing" the article. BTW, I suggest you have a look at the articles on Tea Party movement, Occupy movement, and Creationism, all of which are controversial movements, spoken of quite badly in some segments of the media, yet somehow Wikipedia manages to cover these without blatant bias and negative editorializing. Why can't we do that here? Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Or even our articles on people/groups clearly "hated" like ISIL, Ku Klux Klan, Charles Manson or Adolf Hilter. Yes, we do have to mention their misdeads and why society does not look favorable at them, but they are given the benefit of an encyclopedic treatment of their history and other events without a negative light. --MASEM (t) 02:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to reflect the way this is reflected in the media. Perhaps TaraInDC's edit wasn't the best, but that doesn't make any of the other edits that have taken place tonight by people arguably on the other side any better. The constant removal of the Kotaku ref. The constant insistences that the descriptions of the acts as misogyny be demoted to being the opinion when it's a common theme in reliable sources. Arguing over the word "discredited" when it is mostly used to refer to the original claims of corruption as nothing else has come about. I'm not going to be made a scapegoat because I'm up at ungodly hours of the night contesting these kinds of edits.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Trust me, I'm not saying that the above edit is the only bad thing going on, but the amount of edits that continue to sneak in more and more "pro-antiGG" propaganda is outweighing the attempts to remove valid sourcing and statements otherwise. Both types of edits are troublesome, but us experienced users should know a lot better not to make them. --MASEM (t) 02:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I know most of my edits that could feasibly be under this umbra of yours have been to the concerns raised by various uninvolved editors throughout the discussions here and on the various other forums of discussion on Wikipedia where people have said that even in this state the article gives too much credence to Gamergate's "it's about ethics" line. And it's hard to keep dealing with the complaints that ascribing "misogyny" as an issue in Wikipedia's voice and the claims that it's a slur.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, the possibility that George Bush was responsible for 19 terrorists slamming into 4 domestic targets should be in the lead of 9/11. Points of view are covered proportionately and fairly. That does not mean "equally". Tarc (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Bad analogy. That would be if we pushed GG into an article like video game journalism. The better example is that we have an article on 9/11 conspiracy theories which in no way insults those that might believes though those provides all appropriate counterevidence that these are bogus. --MASEM (t) 02:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a solid edit, conforms to WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT, do you have a specific policy based problem with it? Artw (talk) 01:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTSOAPBOX - we cannot be a spokemouth for the antiGG and ignore the POV of the proGG that is documented. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The way the New York Times, CNN, and the BBC cover this is not using this a sa soapbox.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We are not a newspaper. We are not here to sensationalize anything. It is very easy to drum up views when you report those that harassed women out of their homes in a very negative light, but we're not here for popularity. We are here to given an encyclopedic treatment of the news, which means we cannot sensationalize things. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

How do you suggest that we approach this issue when every one who has come here due to the RFC feels that the "it's about issues of misogyny and sexism in the gaming community, and also concerns of ethics violations in video game journalism" version of the lede gives the pro-GG side undue weight?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not what the RFC was about nor is there any type of unanimity that you think is there. --MASEM (t) 02:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That may not be what it was about but there are plenty of uninvolved editors appearing who raise the issue.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Correction, issues are not just with the lede but with the apparent over-representation of the pro-GG side.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? That edit was soapboxy? Not even close. While we're at it I don't think someone who has spent the last few days arguing that we abandon all policy and edit the article according to some scheme they've dreamed up themselves gets to lecture anybody on POV or policy. Artw (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never said anything about abandoning any policy. Everything I've said falls with all core content policies including UNDUE/WEIGHT, which I have explained several times. --MASEM (t) 02:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

And if you cannot see how it is a soapbox for the antiGG side, put yourself in the shoes of a proGG person that did not participate in the harassment but wants to promote improved ethics in journalism, and tell me how that is not a grossly insulting twisting of what the sources says. --MASEM (t) 02:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the OP: The biggest favor Wikipedia could perform for the "human beings that are proGG supporters but not part of the harassment" would be to bluntly describe the key facts, as was done in the diff provided in the OP. Fortunately, standard procedures coincide with that favor. Re NOTSOAPBOX: Apart from reliable sources, the obvious situation is that this article would not exist if it concerned opinions regarding journalistic ethics. It is also obvious that people can make up reasons to justify gamergate, but it is not Wikipedia's role to promote those views. The language of independent secondary sources should be used. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Right now the article is WP:SOAPBOX for anti-Gamergate, and justifying this by appealing to the overwhelmingly anti-Gamergate coverage in the mainstream media. I'm sorry, but just because a point of view is held by a large number of people, or a large number of respectable media sources does not mean we should be injecting editorializing into the article in favor of that point of view. WP:NPOV (nor even WP:FRINGE) does not imply majoritarian POV pushing is justified. And as I've stated repeatedly, there's ample opportunity to use unbiased language here, which is pretty far from seeking out an artificial "middle". This is in fact how the majority of well-written Wikipedia article on controversial topics and movements are done. See the Tea Party movement article for a good example. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree completely with Masem and Blue's views. The intro paragraph has veered into further absurdity.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm just trying different wordings hoping to find a way to present the ethics issue that follows the actual sources we have for the topic and that will be palatable enough to the anti-GG pov pushers that it's not instantly reverted. The arguments have all been made on this talk page again and again and the pro-gamergate crowd are outright stonewalling any attempt at progress with claims of bias that have no basis in policy. The fact is that whether the worst harassers are a 'small subset' or not, the campaign is not concerned with any legitimate ethics problems. Gamergate spends a lot of time hassling women who are not particularly powerful in the industry, a lot of time telling everyone who will listen that it's about ethics, and a little time making vague and unsubstantiated claims of ethical problems. This is why we have no reliable sources for any genuine work towards improving ethics in journalism, and why our reliable sources either say only that the movement claims to be concerned with ethics and then moves on to the better sourced infromation about its harrassment of women, or actively debunk the claims in various ways. This has to change. Your preferred version does not meet policy. If you don't like my changes to the lede, suggest a way to properly portray the ethics angle as a claim, because that's all we have sources for. Would you prefer to remove the ethics claims from the lede altogether and address them in more detail later? -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Going back to my earlier revert issues with Ryulong, I was actually quite happy with "claims of journalistic ethics concerns in the online gaming press". What I was not OK with was "widely discredited claims of journalistic ethics concerns in the online gaming press". "Claim" is great - it's neutral language this article needs a hell of a lot more of. My main difference is that I would also put the "misogyny" of Gamergate on the level of "claim" rather than undisputed fact. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The movement's misogynistic harassment is extremely well cited, and is in fact the only reason this article passes the WP:GNG at all. So arguing for treating them both as 'claims' is no better than treating them both as 'facts.' There's no obligation to treat both 'sides' the same: we have to present them both the way the sources do. Our sources for the ethics angle have always treated it as a claim if they mentioned it at all, and increasingly are actually debunking it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

As I keep repeating, and being ignored on, there's in fact no obligation to repeat majoritarian *editorial* slant, and every reason to avoid it, per WP:NPOV. The latter guidelines on avoiding inflammatory language and all the rest still apply, even if the majority of sources you find have a negative spin on the issue. Once again, *describe* the issue, don't *editorialize* a point of view. And I would say, a flat out statement of "Gamergate is intrinsically misogynist" is exactly that. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Further note: For example, this editorial [14] is being treated as an unquestioned "factual" source on the "misogyny" of gamer culture. Venture Beat (and why is this source more "reputable" than much of what's been rejected as source material?) is welcome to that opinion, but it should be treated as such, an opinion. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No. We say what the sources do. Period. Policy does not allow us to ignore aspects of the sources we don't like, so you can't simply handwave away reliable news sources by claiming they're 'editorialized.' The 'flat statement' that you cited does not in fact appear, from what I can tell: contrast it with what the lede actually says: "resulting in increased attention to ingrained issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community." Does it say 'gamergate is intrinsically misogynistic?' No. So stop beating up straw men.

As for your complaint about the word 'ingrained,' that is the result of a completely absurd previous battle over the lede. A large number of direct quotes in this article are the result of tendentious disputes over wording: iirc that particular one resulted from someone taking issue with us paraphrasing the word 'long-noted' to 'long-standing.' This is the kind of thing that happens when a noisy horde of POV warriors are permitted to hold back progress on an article. That is by no means the only source for the movement's misogynistic harassment, though, so it's something of a red herring here. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, did you just call me a "POV warrior"? I'm going to note that as a pretty blatant violation of WP:CIVIL, and I'll take this to the appropriate noticeboard if you're going to keep up with the name-calling. I am not a "POV warrior", if anything, I'm trying to get this back to some state of neutrality. If a clique of pro-Gamergaters slanted this article in the opposite direction, I'd try to push it back to neutrality as well. As for the above, I understand Wikipedia policy quite well, and I understand WP:FRINGE. I also understand something you don't seem to, notably, the difference between news reporting and editorial in journalism, including from the same sites/publications. A New York Times article is treated differently from a New York Times editorial. This is stated Wikipedia policy per WP:NEWSORG:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Expecting adherence to this policy does not make me a "POV warrior". Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is a wonderful example of why we have so many quotes in the article. We've hashed and rehashed the "ingrained/longstanding/whatever" issue over and over again, paraphrasing reliable sources. Diego Moya swooped in and removed the word "long-standing" as "not supported by the source," when it is a clearly-acceptable paraphrase of the source's "long-documented" wording. So I've replaced it with a direct quote that cannot possibly be challenged as "not supported by the source." If you want fewer quotes, stop deleting reasonable paraphrasing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is why wording that doesn't exist in the references and that imply a POV that only exist in the mind of editors pushing it will always be challenged. "Long-standing" is not reasonable, and has never been - it has been extensively disputed, so reinstating it into the article is simply unnaceptable, and you should have known it. Had you actually listened to Iamcuriousblue's concern that we don't need a qualifier at all, and acted upon it by leaving my edit intact, we wouldn't have need the new direct quotation. It takes two to tango. Diego (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The qualifier is significant, has had longstanding support in some form, and is necessary to tell readers that the issue predates Gamergate.

Your argument is that "longstanding" isn't an acceptable paraphrase of "long-documented"? I don't even. Just don't come back here complaining about "excessive quotes." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't Ryulong get tired of getting into a new shitstorm every single day? It even looks like he enjoys it. Take a 1 week break, see how things get better and evaluate your usefulness to the article Loganmac (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Logan, do you do anything around here but take snipes at other editors? I can not believe that you only yesterday had the nerve to shoo off another editors comments about attempts to intimate them into silence with 'NOTFORUM' when you're behaving like this. Go back to reddit if you don't want to do anything but talk shit. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please tell me that a guy saying "I got doxxed by 8chan" was in any way or form a reasonable concern on the topic of the article, because if that is so then you clearly don't know a lot about policies as you claim. The Devil Advocate closed the discussion like 10 seconds after I reverted him. Also, how do you know I'm from reddit, did you try look up my username? Are you sure that username is mine? Am I not allowed to criticize Wikipedia? And your statement saying I do "nothing but talk shit" is a little off don't you think, or have you ignored my actual suggestions? And yet again this is further getting a moot discussion that has nothing to do with the article Loganmac (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We know you're from Reddit because Bosstopher informed us all that he found your thread basically attacking him in September and I don't recall you denying you posted it then.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, my friends keep showing me all the threads you've been writing about me on KotakuInAction.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It was at least as relevant as the comment you made just above. You've been told repeatedly that this is not a forum, and it's quite bad enough that you ignore those comments and continue to chatter away, but using that same guideline to dismiss another editor's legitimate concerns? You're a waste.

I used reddit as an example of the type of place where your idle one-liner insults are common. Not reddit? Great. 4chan. Wherever. I don't care. If you want to chat, go someplace that is for chatting. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Preventing extremely biased editors from removing valid sources or adding incredibly invalid sources is useful, is it not? Are my article contributions such as the WikiLeaks section or these various additions so problematic that it means I should be banned? Maybe my attempt to rewrite the lead yesterday (or two days ago, whenever it is from this posting) was a bit much, but all anyone sees or says they see are the number of edits I make and complain about that number rather than actual content I've contributed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Does any anti-gg people actually read the rest of the NOPOV policy? Or just BALSPS? There is still WP:YESPOV which states:

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice.

and

Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize.

and then there is WP:IMPARTIAL which states:

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view.

NOWHERE does WP:BALASPS say that since most of the RS's present one opinion; wikipedia has to have that opinion too. Retartist (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The flaw in your thinking here is the apparent assumption that pointing out gamergate's misogynistic harassment can only ever be 'opinion.' We are not merely sourcing this from opinion pieces, but from mainstream news. We're not editorializing, we're just describing the topic the way our sources do. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you are sourcing from opinion pieces and treating them as the equivalent as news stories. That's a big part of the problem here. Also, even if the article takes a strongly opinionated tone, that does not mean you carry that language over into the Wikipedia article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That's simply not true. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We can document that harassment did indeed occur, but we can't outright call it misogynistic without attributing it as the opinion of someone. See WP:LABELS. We can call Hitler a nazi but we can't outright say that he is evil, instead we attribute that to historians, philosophers, etc. Muscat Hoe (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Just for fun compare the lead of the Hitler article to this one. Even Hitler comes off better looking than GamerGate. Even when the absolute majority of historians regard him as a synonim of evil, in the article he's treated, as it should be, neutrally and historically Loganmac (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. To bring this back into bounds, compare this article to the one on Tea Party movement. Best practices for treating controversial topics are well established on Wikipedia, and the current state of this article is wholly going against established precedent here. Once again, I'll state that I'm not some "single purpose account" who doesn't understand the rules of Wikipedia. I understand them quite well, in fact, perhaps better than those who are defending the current abysmally biased state of this article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Comparisons to other articles are irrelevant. We're talking about this article. There is no one template for how to discuss all controversial articles: all of them have to be considered individually and written based on the sources available. Believe it or not, there are stronger sources for the Tea Party's claimed aims than there are for gamergate's. These types of arguments may be well received in the gamergate echo chamber, but pointing to other articles and saying 'you make us sound worse than THIS!' is not going to prove a thing here, because that alone does not demonstrate that the sources available for the two topics are comparable. It does not matter if you think that gamergate is better than this subject or should be portrayed the way that one is: what matters is what the sources say.-- TaraInDC (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems you were a little late with that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Putting aside your uncivil commentary about "Gamergate echo chamber", I think comparison with other articles is *wholly* relevant. If Wikipedia does not work on precedent, what basis do we have for interpreting policy? More importantly, I'm not making an "other crap exists" argument, but the very opposite. I'm saying good articles on controversial topics exist, and best practices on Wikipedia exist, and that they are not being followed here. Your point on Tea Party Press vs Gamergate press is well taken. Nevertheless, one need only look at the article on Creationism. As a biologist, I'm acutely aware that this idea is pure bunk rejected by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. Acceptance of it is a fringe opinion. Yet somehow, the article manages to keep a neutral tone and NPOV principles are upheld to the greatest degree possible. The insistence here seems to be that because the press is anti-GG often in very harsh terms, the tone of this article must be denunciatory toward Gamergate to the strongest extent possible. GRANTED, this article must be sourced from largely anti-GG coverage and repeat the facts as reported. I am not arguing against that. HOWEVER, this does not mean we import NPOV tone and inflammatory language from the articles. Wikipedia is not RationalWiki and articles should not take a partisan tone. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It most certainly is, TaraInDC. This [15] is an opinion piece. It even says so at the top of the article. It is being used to source statements of fact. I've already explained how this is violation of stated policy in WP:NEWSORG. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Then you'll be satisfied if I replace "ingrained" with "long-standing" and "seemingly-intractable", as per The Washington Post? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You left out "much debated", but in any event, even "long standing" is less biased that "ingrained". But the larger question as to why we need to be using intensifiers and strong adjectives that unnecessarily take the article *farther* away from NPOV language so clearly called for in Wikipedia's rules. Or are you going to argue what some others have been arguing, namely that we are somehow obliged to import bias in tone from the source articles, even when we have the option of phrasing those statements in a much more neutral manner. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You'll need to explain again what part of NPOV prohibits us from using appropriately-sourced language to describe something, and your assertion that the source article has a "bias in tone" is nothing more than your personal opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Your statement is bizarre. So, basically, you should be allowed to use as biased of language as you want as long as you "source" it to a reliable source? There are two issues being conflated under the issue of NPOV 1) The fact that this article is being sourced from mainstream media sources that are overwhelmingly negative toward Gamergate, and that the presentation of facts in this article is going to some degree reflect that. That is what it is, and I'm not disputing that. Whereas 2) The idea that because the mainstream media is overwhelmingly condemnatory in tone toward Gamergate, this article must adopt the same *editorial* slant and tone. Hence, use of blatantly POV language like "'widely discredited' claims about journalistic ethics. (Thankfully, this is now gone, but not after several editors fought hard for it.) The degree of doubling down on language condemning Gamergate is wholly uncalled for and expressly counter to WP:NPOV, even toward a so-called "fringe" POV. The POV of 2 definitely does not follow from 1, and I'm tired of editors claiming that it somehow does. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 08:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

And I already addressed that one example and explained how it came to be in the article: it's a product of pro-Gamergate bias. Your adversarial tone here is extremely unhelpful: "you are citing opinion pieces," whether you mean me personally or 'anti-GG' editors in general, is inaccurate. As I said, that is not by any means the only article that we're using to source the claims you're disputing. It was on the front page of the new york times for crying out loud. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I meant the "collective you", but in any event, changed that almost immediately when I read the accusatory tone of it, before you even noted it here. My apologies for not catching that before it went live. In any event, once again, I'm noting that the source that's being used to justify describing gamer culture as one of ingrained misogyny is an op-ed, and I've pointed to Wikipedia's policy on use of opinion sources. Unless you have any actual objection based on Wikipedia *policy*, the only thing left to do is rewrite that clearly biased and improperly sourced statement, which I have every intention of doing. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You want it reverted to the previous, even better cited wording, that's fine, but bear in mind that this is wording is a compromise based on the result of a previous discussion: I don't particularly care about that one way or the other, because my concern here is some editors' insistence that we must treat the comments about misogyny as 'opinion.' Nitpicking over this one word as if it disproves what I said above is absurd. The point you were attempting to respond to stands: the misogynistic behavior of the movement is much better cited than the ethics angle, and the former does not need to be qualified in the way the latter does. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. That edit is accurately representing the sources of the article. Truth hurts. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed what it says at the top of the page?:

Please be calm and civil when you make comments or when you present evidence, and avoid personal attacks. Please be patient as we work toward resolution of the issues in a peaceful, respectful manner.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamcuriousblue (talk • contribs) 05:50, 28 October 2014

Do you have a comment regarding the fact that the edit accurately represents the source? Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That's some seriously loaded and over emotive writing. Halfhat (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's about ethics in gaming journalism is now a joke meme, I think it's time to give up on that one. In general it seems like undue influence of "SJWs" has replaced that as GamerGates stated focus anyway. Artw (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers on Gamergate

Video Willhesucceed (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Mmm, CHSommers does it again. --The Defender of Light Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing >Inventory< 09:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you stop pasting links to this page like it's KotakuInAction already? Present information found in these links that you want to be incorporated into the article for once FFS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What does "FFS" mean? AnyyVen (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Google can answer many questions. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The answer took two fewer words. AnyyVen (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

People have been upset that I used the actual word. Are abbreviations off limits now too?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of being upset, personally I couldn't care less, it's when you violate WP:CIVIL by pointing those words towards people that Wikipedia should take notice Loganmac (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes. Replacing offensive words with abbreviations that most readers recognize as the offensive words means that the message you bring in your comment is no different than if you were to use the full words. For example, telling someone to 'STFU' is just as uncivil as actually spelling out the words.Omegastar (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

To get back to the topic, what exactly do you propose to add or change based on the above video, Willhesucceed? There's already as section on Sommers' support for Gamergate. Does the above video add to or contradict anything in there? Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Her opinion on feminism should be noted seeing she's an expert on the topic, and we'll see if any articles cover this to gather more info. But Willhesucceed you should really recommend what to include. And although Ryulong yet again proves his behaviour and uncivility (and yet again no admin does anything) you should propose ideas Loganmac (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't this the only actual source made by a scholar/academic? Retartist (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Her proclamation of being their "mom" now makes things questionable.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That term was not coined by her. We have been referring to her as "based mom" for a while now Retartist (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Scholars can't joke now Loganmac (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It does mean she's taken a side when neutrality is what you all have been striving for.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

She's taken the side of what she personally believes is reasonable based on academic evidence and studying the matter. Loganmac (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

She's taken a side that arguably shares her views on third wave feminism.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that she is an expert in feminism, although her strong anti-feminist stance is an issue when using her writings. However, she isn't an expert in gaming and gaming culture, so we need to be a bit more cautious there. At any rate, in listening to the video, I can't find much we can use in this article unless we want to provide more coverage of Sommers' opinions, and I don't see much value in taking that path. - Bilby (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"she isn't an expert in gaming and gaming culture"... That's OK, almost nobody else cited in this article is either.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Her views on gaming shouldn't be included but her views on what she calls a misrepresentation based on sexism and misogny should be expanded on. And add something when sources cover her if she hasn't been blacklisted already Loganmac (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The two are intrinsically connected, given that she is talking about sexism in gaming, and her views on sexism and feminism have generally been regarded as extreme. We already have most of a full paragraph and a photo of her - there doesn't seem to be anything substantial that we can add from the video unless there is a specific suggestion to consider, and I'm worried about giving her opinions too much weight. - Bilby (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

She's an expert on feminism like Ken Ham is an expert on evolution. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you're mistaking this for the comments section of one of the Gawker sites? This is Wikipedia. We're supposed to be discussing how to improve the article, with as much civility as can be mustered given this contentious topic. Snark for its own sake is contributing nothing to this process. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think an accurate assessment of Somners is complex. I've seen some of her videos. She's got a strong grasp of research methodology and brings it to bear on the issues. She expresses a bias, but it's not a hard one - mainly she cites weak research methods as her reasoning to disagree with conclusions, and the social sciences are notorious for flubby research. It's due to how we can't do many direct empirical studies of the brain yet since we can't watch it function in action. The entire reason she's called an anti-feminist is because... well... she questions the studies - and if the studies are not to be questioned at all, then it's nothing more than a hokey pseudoscience. Fact is, biased or not, she does discuss and understand the material at the level of an expert to the point where you'd need to be on her degree of knowledge to proactively dispute with her. She claims she's a feminist. It seems unfair to say she isn't an expert on her subject just because she has conservative leanings. YellowSandals (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Iamcuriousblue: Do you have a substantive comment on the issue? EvergreenFir has made a valid point with an analogy. Do you doubt what was said? Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that piece of snark rises to the level of "substantive comment". I also think you and EvergreenFir might do well to reacquaint yourself with WP:CIVIL, because it impresses me that EvergreenFir is not even making an attempt to stay within the bounds of it. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I like how after attacks, this treeperson goes and does a WikiLove edit. kek --The Defender of Light Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing >Inventory< 09:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing incivil about my comment. I made an analogy about Sommer's qualifications. See my comment below. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not Sommers is a feminist is irrelevant. She has a long history of being noteworthy in discussions of gender, including feminism. That's all that matters. Willhesucceed (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Sadly correct. My point is she's no an expert on feminism, but she is notable. The question is if she's WP:FRINGE. Academically she is, but for this article probably not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is Somners not an expert on Feminism? She holds a PhD in philosophy and is a former professor, and she displays her chops when she talks about the research methods. Disagreeing with the methods used to acquire data doesn't mean someone isn't an expert in the thing they question - in the sciences, in fact, a researcher is usually seen as a hack if they aren't critical of their own methodology and the methodology of others. It's a core aspect of proper academics, and it's somewhat telling of tone that Somners' criticism somehow invalidates her expertise. Like I say, she expresses biases, but can you dispute the things she's saying? I can't, but that's because, in spite of understanding how methodology is evaluated, I lack the breadth of knowledge to actually argue toe to toe with someone like Somners.

In this video linked here, she points out that Anita Sarkeesian is using social models that originate from nearly four decades ago. She specifically cites the study and explains how that theory has evolved since that time. Like it or not, Somners approaches this topic as an expert. If it's true that Anita really is using outdated theories from the mid seventies, then perhaps a fairly critical expert since it means Anita is being disruptive to the entire field of study when people think of her as a scholar. If you wanted to refute what Somners is saying, you'd need someone with as much background in this subject to actually discuss it. That's what it means to be an expert in a field. YellowSandals (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, I should point that scientific discussion isn't meant to be determined by popular opinion. Your most crucial factor is methodology which can be repeated under peer review, which consistently produces the same results. Although there may be popular academic theories taught in classes now, if those aren't peer reviewed and happen to merely be the pet theories of the researchers teaching the classes, they amount to a lot of hogwash. Expensive hogwash for the students paying to learn them. I think you don't understand how valuable it is to have scathing cynics in the scientific community. They don't always make many friends, but they're essential, and they are experts. YellowSandals (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a valid debate in the literature about whether or not Sommers is a feminist, but there's no reason to extend that to questioning her credentials on the topic. That said, the topic she is discussing is gaming culture, not feminism, and expertise in feminism does not necessarily extend to expertise in gaming culture. Thus we need to be cautious about accepting her self-published comments about gaming culture as more than opinion. - Bilby (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

People in academia arguing over validity of their theories and methodologies is commonplace, and is hardly evidence of someone "being disruptive to the entire field of study." To use an example I'm familiar with, grounded theory has been the subject of internecine warfare practically from the moment it gained common currency, as its originators split over methodological disputes shortly thereafter and there are now two schools of thought in GT. This doesn't mean that either the Glaser or Strauss & Corbin schools are disrupting data analysis studies — it just means there's different opinions. And now I'm having bad flashbacks to graduate school so I'm going to stop. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Is Anita considered an expert on gaming or Feminism by Wikipedia? The reason why Somner's criticism is meaningful to this debate is because Somners is suggesting that Anita, and in fact perhaps a number of the Feminist experts involved in this controversy, actually aren't experts at all. There's a difference between having your own avenues of research versus citing forty year-old research that has seen been drastically altered by updated studies. Again, you guys keep saying there's no valid ethical complaints, but if these people are impersonating experts while demonstrating a very poor grasp of the contemporary material just so they can stir up ad-clicks and donations, the ethics are bonkers. For that matter, is there such a thing as a gaming expert? That would be someone in the industry who makes games, right? But that doesn't describe Anita either. YellowSandals (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian is in the article because she has been widely reported as a target of harassment related to Gamergate, not because she's being used as an expert on gaming or feminism. Strongjam (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Also because her commentary on gaming and gaming culture have gotten far more attention from reliable sources. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just bring it up because there have been numerous complaints that parties requesting neutrality have been "POV pushers". Just try to understand that if some people involved in this controversy are setting back the public perception of gender research by forty years, it might not be wise to write the article as though there are good guys and bad guys, and nor should you assume everyone with concerns of neutrality is strictly working against you. YellowSandals (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Although I agree that she is an expert on the topic of feminism, it is worth keeping in mind that she is also strongly opposed to the stance taken by most feminists, and many have argued that she is anti-feminism. Accordingly, when she suggests that a feminist has set the movement back 40 years, based on an interpretation of a single line, through a self-published commentary uploaded onto YouTube, I'm inclined to take that with a grain of salt.

At any rate, the point is probably moot. We're not looking at critical analysis of Sarkeesian here, and Sommers isn't saying anything additional about GG that is useful for the article. - Bilby (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

GameJournoPros article

I thought everyone should know that an article on GameJournoPros was created yesterday and is already at AfD. It's primarily based on SPS, which is bad. I removed an unsourced listing of people allegedly on the GameJournoPros list, but there are still a number of negative claims and insinuations regarding living persons. We've discussed the topic in depth here, and according to our Talk and the BLP noticeboard the consensus was to remove mention of GameJournoPros from this article, but obviously that is another article. I'll probably be cutting out any BLP infringing material soon unless someone else beats me to it. Woodroar (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a mistake to not even mention GameJournosPro in this article. For the reader coming to this issue for the first time, it's a pretty glaring omission. There appear to be a great many reliable sources which discuss the GameJournosPro accusation so that even if you don't think a mailing list where journalists discuss how to coordinate their coverage is an ethics problem (I make no comment on that as my personal opinion on that isn't relevant in this context) there is no question that the accusations are notable and an important part of this overall story.

I tend to agree that a separate article for it is not warranted - it's a part of this story and should be here. Please discuss. (And I don't think the previously closed discussion is sufficient reason to not discuss it again as it was closed before the publication of some important sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no doubt that it will need to be covered in some way, at some point. However, while the list was interesting, it has so far been a non-issue, as nothing significant has come out of it. There have been a few claims of it being used to coordinate coverage, but as far as I'm aware none have managed to stand up to independent scruitiny, unless someone is aware of material I may have missed. So the wording is likely to be brief, and very cautious given the risk of BLP problems. - Bilby (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I was about to propose something here, but I scoured the Internet and basically haven't found any real, independent reliable sources discussing the issue. What we have are a couple GG-linked people on unreliable sources saying "GJP is massive evidence of collusion!" and the people on the list saying "Well, no, it wasn't." There isn't anyone originally disconnected from the debate who's weighed in. As far as mainstream sources are concerned, it's a nothingburger. So coming up with anything substantive is difficult at best. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Some gaming journalists discussed issues relating to their jobs on a private mailing list called GameJournoPros. After some e-mails from the list were leaked, supporters of GamerGate accused its members of using the list to collude with each other on GamerGate-related topics. List members stated that their conversations were freewheeling, often involved disagreement and had fostered professional conduct. The list's owner, Kyle Orland, apologized for an e-mail suggesting that reviewers pay attention to Zoe Quinn's game, but noted that his suggestion had been rejected by other members which, he said, "disproves" the allegations of collusion and "shows the independent spirit of those who participate in the group." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We're talking about the allegations that journalist colluded on a private mailing list, allegations that were quickly debunked? I thought this had been in the article all along, but hmm, I do not see it now. I think it is worth mention, if only to note that is it one of several failed criticisms. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The criticisms were not "debunked" but "denied". "Debunked" is a success verb that implies more than simple denial. Having looked at the leaked emails, I would say that the allegations of collusion are largely and obviously true. So there's not really any justification for us to go further than "denied".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It would seem to be original research for us to inject our opinions of what particular subsets of leaked e-mails mean or don't mean. I've also looked at the leaked e-mails and saw a wide range of opinions on the various issues, and disagree with your interpretation that there was "collusion" in regards to GamerGate. What I saw was one person with a bad idea (the "letter of support") and a number of other people who told that person they had a bad idea and would not participate. There aren't any reliable sources really addressing the issue, as I noted above. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo, the Pen & Pencil Club is a venue for journalists in Philadelphia area to get together, talk about issues relating to their profession and whatnot. It has existed since 1892. This mailing list was just a modern version of that and countless others across the nation. "Collusion" among journalists implies is a very loaded word that implies a coordinated intent to manipulate and deceive public opinion on a particular subject. There was no evidence of that whatsoever, so I'm sorry, but "debunked" is rather correct. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Tarc, in that my feeling is that we would need something very strong to justify saying that journalists "colluded". In reading the relevant emails, what I see is a group of journalists in agreement, but not colluding per se. Generally they seem to feel that the issues regarding Quinn are a private matter being used to shame her, and therefore they are individually unwilling to touch it as they don't see it as game-related news. There's some discussion about whether the community should be discussing it on their site's forums, and some questions about where the line should be drawn on coverage, but it all seems fairly tame.

To draw a comparison - if a group of editors on the talk page of a WP article discuss whether or not to include allegations of an affair in a BLP, and decide that it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BLP, are they colluding to leave it out or are they simply in agreement that they should leave it out? There is an issue of perspective, but I'm going to assume the latter unless there's some very strong sources supporting the former. - Bilby (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's important to remember the difference between types of evidence. It's clear that the journalists on the list are in contact - networking is an important part of the industry, after all. Accusations of collusion are based on the circumstance that the journalists are all in contact with each other as well as a few other details. It's what you'd call circumstantial evidence, which, in courts of law, tends only to result in convictions when there is an overwhelming amount of it. For the sake of an encyclopedia, a discussion of circumstantial evidence would need to be handled very carefully and there would need to be some clear, expressed exposition on it from reliable sources. YellowSandals (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that Jimbo is referring to the Destructoid issues, as there has been some lobbying to cover that in WP. My feeling so far is that the GameJournosPro connection to that issue is minor at best - the most that can be claimed is that there was a request for advice on the list, and there may have been a recommendation not to hire someone. (I'm being a bit cautious here, as there have been attempts to draw conclusions from some recent events, none of which are directly related to GG). This particular issue is something that I don't think we should touch, simply because the only connection to GG is that questions were asked on the GameJournosPro list. Other issues might warrant a mention where they are more closely connected to GG. - Bilby (talk)

I'm not familiar with these Destructoid issues... is there a good source? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

CinemaBlend has something: [16]. - Bilby (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I've written this up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You cite Kain for his opinion about collusion, but don't note his statements about members of the list trying to pressure The Escapist's editor-in-chief into shutting down discussion of allegations against Quinn? We should mention what allegations have been made about the list where we have good sources on it rather than cherry-picking the sources or statements that say there is no collusion. Orland's statement on the matter, in particular, is very much a conflicted opinion seeing as he created the list and would naturally be inclined to defend himself and the list. While I can understand people want less space for mentioning this, it should be representative of all coverage, not just the coverage favorable to those saying there was nothing wrong with the list. Destructoid's Editor-in-Chief resigned, for heaven's sake, and I think that at least warrants a mention.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TDA and Jimbo. Can we work out the text to add, or do we need to go the RfC route? Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

TDA, I referred to it but did not spell out the exact details. It's either all or nothing so I guess you want nothing right now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This was just trimmed out by kaciemonster and I agree w/ the general goal of slimming these things down. If we want Kain, or any other source, for additional claims we should be clear about what we're saying and make sure that we don't have a series of sentences which serve mostly to reinforce previous ones. I don't have an objection to mentioning the destructoid resignation or (possibly) the escapist bit, but we should be careful to make sure that our reaction doesn't mirror the reaction the world had to Journolist--which is to say that we mistake hue and cry for actual malfeasance (as we're sort of doing with the Gawker/Intel stuff). Protonk (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The above text from TDA misrepresents Kain's description of the issue. Kain states that Kuchera urges Tito to shut down The Escapist forum where the discussion of Quinn was occurring, but Tito refuses, arguing that a place for discussion is a healthy thing. 1) Kuchera is the only person quoted as doing this and 2) If we define "pressure" as "any time someone suggests a different course of action," we render that word meaningless. Thus, describing this exchange as a cabal conspiracy, rather than an instance of two professionals disagreeing with each other, seems to be, at best, stretching the truth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see Kain only mentions one name. Fudge's piece discusses his role in it as well. Kain does seem to allude to there being more than one person when stating "Tito writes in response to Kuchera and others, 'but I don’t know if the answer is to delete the thread. The Escapist is not giving harassment a home, but allowing civil discussion on a matter that people are emotional about.'" If you saw the e-mails you would know there were at least three members who actively pushed for Tito to close the thread.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Do we want this shit covered or not?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that the section you've added on the list is really good, and I have no complaints at all, and it is very nicely worded. But I don't feel that we should include the Destructoid issue. Blacklisting someone can be illegal, and the accusation is that the editor may have acted illegally through his email to the list, and for that we need a better source and more to go on than the interpretation of his comment being offered. In regard to the editor quitting, there has been no statement as to whether or not it is connected to GG or the list, but some people are reading that into it based on the timing. - Bilby (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I did mistake the conversation going on here as desiring its coverage in the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That's cool - I think you did a terrific job on the section, though. Nicely balanced. - Bilby (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the Destructoid issue should be included, but I do think Ryulong's version was a bit too direct and certain. When I added the section in my latest epic Leeroy Jenkins edit it was phrased as follows: "Following reports that the list had discussed the firing of a journalist at Destructoid and potentially having him blacklisted with other outlets, the editor-in-chief, Dale North resigned from his position at the outlet." To me saying there were reports that the list discussed potentially having him blacklisted adds sufficient uncertainty and avoids linking to any single person. Perhaps you would prefer that phrasing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I know you might think I'm the last person that'd defend a Destructoid writer but isn't that a little BLP violation? Acussing someone of blacklisting is a serious claim and is downright illegal, should we sourced way better Loganmac (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Another massive edit

So, basically, I felt I would give another epic Leeroy Jenkins edit a try here and see what people think of it. I re-arranged a few things, particularly sectioning over the GamerGate activism section to focus on organization and such regarding the movement and try to maintain the relevance of other sections. One thing I did was restore a section for stuff about ethics concerns and added a sub-section for GameJournoPros since it is mentioned in numerous reliable sources. One other important addition was the mention of harassment of GamerGate supporters. I also diminished the stuff about Felicia Day since that we being given way too much weight given its minimal impact. Overall, I feel this is a step towards a better and more neutral article, though it still needs work.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 10:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, it already seems more neutral than first.--Sirtywell — Preceding undated comment added 10:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the GameJournoPros stuff, as the allegations are not made by any particular reliable source. BrightSideOfNews is not one, as was discussed a long, long time ago. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, I would suggest you step away from this article for a little while. You are making blatantly NPOV edits at this point. Stating "Lets be blunt here" while changing "allegations" to "false allegations" when both Quinn and Greyson have confirmed they had at least a personal friendship at the time of his writing about her works (which was the original accusation) is very much an inappropriate edit. KiTA (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Having a "personal friendship" is not a violation of journalism ethics. Grayson never wrote a review of Quinn's game. Therefore, as discussed in all of the reliable sources, the accusations are considered false. And no, I'm not going to "step aside." We describe false allegations as they are — false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, having an undisclosed personal friendship with a subject is very much a violation of journalism ethics. No one ever claimed Grayson wrote a review of Quinn's game, merely that he gave her positive (and in some cases, unusually specific) attention. And finally, a journalist or publication, talking about themselves in defense of accusations of impropriety, is by definition not a reliable source. KiTA (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You are engaged in a rather interesting attempt to rewrite history and I decline to engage you in it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That is not how discussion works, Baranof. Respond to the argument, not the person. Omegastar (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Even "allegations" is not a good word because it implies there is no truth to the claim. But since nobody in the press has bothered to point out Grayson's promotion, writing otherwise would be WP:OR. Although it is still absolutely ridiculous that Kotaku is still being used as a reliable source on their own impropriety.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"Allegation" is a standard word for an unproven claim of wrongdoing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Just commenting that the overall structure feels much better with this, thanks. There's still other problems but this helps. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Intro

I hate to say it, but my word, that intro is a wordy embarrassment. I tried to break it up for whitespace, as well as clean up the flow a bit. It's also a very bad NPOV violation, which I tried to clean up slightly. In particular, I feel the following needs to be addressed:

• Gamergate's supporters, as in the people claiming to be behind the Gamergate movement, feel that it is about ethics in journalism. Their *critics* feel that this is a smokescreen to cover various forms of bigotry. I feel this is an important distinction that is not being addressed with the current lede. In particular, mentioning supposed bigotry before the ethics concerns I feel colors the opening inappropriately.
• The lede seems to cover most of the claims of harassment and bigotry, but is very lite on the claims of ethics violations. This is inappropriate. If the lede mentions one, it should give equal time to the other, as it is apparent that both are equally important to the people following this controversy.
• There are a significant number of Weasel Words ("reportedly," for example, in the most recent edit) in the article, in particular when dancing around some of the sources. I do not mean to call anyone out over this, as I am absolutely certain I left one or two in there on accident.
• In addition, several instances of anonymous harassment are being attributed to "Gamers" or "Gamergate supporters" when there is no actual evidence of this. (In fact, there is more evidence that some of these events are acts of trolls or agent provocateurs.) I feel it is enough to mention that the harassment and death threats occurred -- they're bad enough -- without jumping to unfounded conclusions that cloud the issue.

This is a particularly touchy subject that seems to have inflamed both sides quite a bit. I hope we can all continue to keep a clear head and remain neutral. KiTA (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Per Bold, revert, discuss, I have reverted your edits until we reach consensus. The pre-existing lede is the result of long hours of debate, discussion and compromise. Please do not edit war over them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We do not introduce a controversial thing with what its supporters want us to perceive it as. We introduce that controversial thing as reliable sources are describing it. And it is trivial to demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources discuss the issue from the perspective of misogynistic harassment. The claims of "ethics violations" have all been debunked and rejected by reliable sources and are not deserving of "equal time."

NPOV does not mean "equal time" to all claims — it means that we place due weight on competing claims in accordance with their prevalence in reliable sources. It is trivial to demonstrate that the claims of "ethics violations" are not given much, if any, credence in mainstream reliable sources covering the issue. Therefore, neither will Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

IF we are going to talk about reliable sources then we need to purge any and all sources that are connected to journalists or publications covered by these claims of ethics violations -- Kotaku, for example, as well as any journalist involved in the GameJournosPros list. Simply put, these are tainted sources and cannot be trusted. I would go so far as to suggest that articles using these articles as sources should also be considered tainted, such as the Washington Post articles. This is a debate on apparent malpractice by journalists, and we are using these same journalists' works to defend themselves. That's not appropriate. KiTA (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. That's not how it works. One doesn't get to claim that everyone is biased except for those who are supporting them. Wikipedia is based on what is published in reliable sources, and that includes reliable sources that Gamergaters don't like. You are basically arguing that every major media outlet on the planet is biased against you, which is a conspiracy theory of the grandest scale. Do you realize how silly your argument sounds to anyone outside the bubble? "The Washington Post, Kotaku, BBC, PBS NewsHour, Vox, The Irish Independent, New York magazine, Wil Wheaton, John Gruber, Felicia Day, that Popehat guy, Jeb Lund, Wondermark Comics and Film Critic Hulk... they're all part of a secret anti-gamer SJW cabal suppressing the truth!" NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

My, what a nicely constructed strawman. You should be proud! You do realize even the journalists on GJPros confirm the existence of the group and the veracity of the leaked emails, yes? KiTA (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You can't really call the sources that are part of the controversy reliable.--Sirtywell — Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you can. The fact that someone, somewhere has made an accusation about something does not render that something tainted or unreliable. Otherwise, it would be a very neat trick to get rid of literally any source you don't like — just make an accusation against them and presto, "they're part of the controversy, they're not reliable." Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines do not work that way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to get rid of the sources but you have got to absolutely make it clear that these journals are reacting to accusations directed at them or else this is a really worthless article.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, there are more than sufficient sources to attribute the threats and harassment to GamerGate supporters. "GamerGate has grown to include outright harassment of women like Quinn and Sarkeesian who work in or critique the industry"—PBS NewsHour. "Day's experience was simply the latest example of how the #GamerGaters harass and intimidate women even tangentially connected to the controversy"—Vox. "Whatever its original motivations, that — attempting to silence women through threats of violence, otherwise known as terrorism — is what GamerGate has become."—The Journal TImes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Addressing your points in the order they are presented:

1. We cover the harassment before the journalistic ethics material because of the relative prominence in the best sources. i.e. Harassment, misogyny etc. get overwhelmingly more of the coverage and analysis whereas the journalistic ethics stuff is largely dismissed (one or two exceptions, of course, or we wouldn't be mentioning it at all in the lede.)
2. No, see point 1 above. The extant and nature of coverage should match the best sources which emphatically do not treat these two matters equally.
3. Fine. I couldn't find any instances of reportedly in the currently article but if any should occur they should be rephrased.
4. If the best sources attribute in that fashion they we repeat that. Whether there is sufficient evidence for that attribution is not something Wikipedia permits you or I to judge.

CIreland (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Weasel words are considered fine for the into. There is some POV issues, also seeing it seems to have large changes on a daily basis you can't claim there is some consensus backing it. Halfhat (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There was a longstanding consensus version, and I suppose we could revert to it if there's enough demand. Gamergate supporters were even less happy with it than they are with this one. Pick your poison. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the old one was a good bit out of date so it's not even much of an option. Halfhat (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I find it curious that an editor away from the project for 18 months just happens to reappear on a contentious article, new (and awfully biased) lead re-write in hand. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The "Hitler isn't treated so badly!" line of argument some of the new editors brought up yesterday was apparently doing the rounds on some of the nastier Subreddits, so that would explain a lot. Artw (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The reaction was more common than you think. I don't browse Reddit/4chan/what-have-you and the extremely abrasive lede immediately had me look up Ku Klux Klan and Nazi Party for referencing. Yes, I thought those articles were handled with much less bias.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Those articles are 1) not currently the center of a trollgate attack and 2 ) have had more than 2 months to develop and 3) have a wide range of heavily academic sources that 4) look at the subject from a distance. Until those four conditions apply here, you are unlikely to see anything other than a hot mess. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for rewrite and trimming

With an article like this, you'd expect the intro sentence to state what "Gamergate" is officially designated, followed by a linebreak and a paragraph stating its origins in no less than two or three sentences and "...it has received wide criticism from..." etc. The third and last paragraph should then state how, who, and where the subject has received support. The Sarkeesian/Quinn/Wu/whatever stuff does not need to be in the lede. They are easily represented by the statement "A number of people, primarily women, working in the gaming industry in various capacities were subjected to an intense campaign of harassment and violent threats..." The specifics of these threats and the victim's individual responses are not top priority for a brief summary. Quinn may have sparked the movement, surely making her an important factor, but according to the article contents along with the greater scheme of things, she is ultimately of no more significance than the other women claiming harassment. Likewise, Adam Baldwin isn't namedropped, and he "invented" Gamergate.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that these women have been harassed and fled their homes are a central discussion of the Gamergate controversy. Again, this article is not about GamerGate as a movement. It's about everything that has happened surrounding the hashtag.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh, yes it is about the movement, as well as the events that have arisen because of it. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that several women have been harassed is one of the central discussions; I fail to see how this article demonstrates that the women themselves are central, except for maybe Quinn, but only in that she was a motivator.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Quin was THE TARGET, not a motivator. Stop attempting to blame the victim. BLP applies to all comments on all pages. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

• Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article. (MOS:INTRO)
• The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. (MOS:BEGIN)
• The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs [more than 30,000 characters]. (WP:LEADLENGTH)

I'd appreciate if you didn't accuse me of victim blaming just because I've been led to believe that Quinn's direct associations has turned comparatively minuscule in hindsight, thanks. I've not seen anything which states or suggests that Quinn is or was the final boss of Gamergate. She was speculated to be a target of Gamergate, and is said to have instigated the movement, but there is nothing to her beyond that — save for some pre-existing online drama between her and other communities/organizations. Perhaps you could instead offer a suggestion on how the lede could be trimmed? What are the most important points of Gamergate summarized in fewer words? The lede's current character count is more than 40,000, some 10,000 more than recommended by MOS.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Quin "was speculated to be a target of Gamergate"? ?????? ???????? she " instigated the movement"?  ????? ???????? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

She forced them to spend the last few days trawling through her source code looking for "clues", you know. Artw (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd also appreciate a less condescending attitude. Maybe "speculate" is not as good a descriptor as Gamergate advocates being "ascribed blame" for her harassment. And yes, she instigated, caused, sparked, incited, catalyzed, whatever. Plenty of sources stating such on the article. Obviously I did not mean she had begun or started it voluntarily. Any more thoughts?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: Quite plainly, NO, QUINN DID NOTHING. A jilted boyfriend and internet trolls DID things. That has been clear from the very start and is covered in EVERY reliable source. Her role, at best, has been to be the target. You have received the notice about the discretionary sanctions that apply to this article. Any more tendentious editing that suggests Quinn is responsible in any way will be reported as a trigger for your topic ban. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I spent a good ten minutes wondering what it was I said exactly to justify such a threat and I think I see the technicality in question. OK. I get it now. That doesn't mean, if only for the sake of brevity, that the extent of her and others' harassment needs to all be recapitulated in the lede. Why does the reader need to be informed of the victim's immediate responses in the lede? Is it that central to discussion?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:LEAD the lead summarizes the main points of the subject. the main points of the subject as covered by all of the reliable sources are the harassment against Quinn Sarkeesian and Wu- hence the threats against them will be the major portion of the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Lets try to defuse this

One of the problems is that this is becoming increasingly polarized nature of the debate here, much like GamerGate itself, this helps cause edit wars and makes consensus much harder. Most of us could've probably done better here, I know I could have. I think something needs done, here are some rules I think we should adopt, tell me your thoughts :).Halfhat (talk)

• Try to be polite Just try to be as polite as you can, just try to complementary and phrase things as nicely as you can it'll help.

• Don't accuse If you think someone is breaking the rules report them or leave a 'polite' note on their talk page, don't go around here going "You agenda pushing SPA". It helps no one.

• Don't insult Much like above it helps no one don't go around saying "You SJWs are. . . ." it really helps no one and just drags people into debates.

• Apologize If you slip up apologize, it doesn't take long and helps remove bad blood.

• If you revert a revert, make a talk section Instead of going into an edit war, if you contest a revert create a talk section so you can discuss the issue, and have others look at it.

• Pause before you post Before posting just make yourself take a second to think "Will this benefit the article?".

• Consider your bias I suspect most of us here care about the topic, and there's a good chance you have some personal and probably strong opinion of it. You don't need to state it, just keep it in the back of your mind.

Thanks for reading Halfhat (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I just don't even think it needs to be so volatile here that this sort of thing is even necessary to begin with. I've not tried to be anything other than polite but responses all over the talk pages are not polite, are accusatory, are biased without the intention of providing reason for that bias. Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC) (part 1 of 2 of original comment)

Something went wrong here; I did not write this.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

it came in via this edit [17] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is letting children edit this article. Lord of the Flies children, no less. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Willhesucceed: you have been told a number of times that you may not use this page to vent your spleen against other editors, particularly making thinly veiled accusations. Strike your comment and watch your tongue in the future. This article is under special sanctions that allow administrators to act quickly to such continued tendentious editing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Says the guy who's regularly harassed me on this page. Apparently the rules only apply when when it benefits you. Willhesucceed (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

General Article Policy Discussion

Okay the replies for the above got a bit off track, so I thought I'd try splitting them up. Sorry if I cause any confusion. Halfhat (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There are some very, very simple things that could be done to make this article far more neutral. It doesn't have to be anything radical whatsoever. The biggest issue is that opening bit, and the fact is that it is a generalization with a bias. It's not remotely the most appropriate way to describe any of this and therefore the neutrality is disputed. There are the facts - people were driven out of their homes. Harassment has occurred. Financial backing of various things has occurred. Media sources have tried to spin it all one way or the other. Wikipedia is the source that's supposed to analyze and cross reference these different points of view so as to come up with the least biased encyclopedic representation of it possible. So the issue is mainly the words and sentences we use to bridge facts with other facts. Words like "purportedly" or "supposedly" can completely remove an apparent bias from a sentence. This applies both to the claims of misogyny as well as the claims about journalism, though considering this is the article about "GamerGate", it'd seem more appropriate to cover it from the perspective of its followers and those involved. I think the title of the article being "Gamergate controversy" as opposed to "Gamergate (video games)" or something more appropriate is an issue myself, but I'm not going to try and do anything about it. I'd just want to encourage WP editors to do the most reasonable thing whenever a situation arises. When this all began there was a similar situation regarding the Depression Quest article, where I proposed some changes that were initially reverted. The article now contains these changes and as I said in that talk page, I trust the community will make the best decision (instead of just arguing incessantly). Swim Jonse (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. The article should be renamed. The lede refers to itself as the Gamergate article, yet others have rationalized that this is the Gamergate controversy article. The discussion of the hashtag cannot possibly usurp the notability of the hashtag itself.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)(part 2 of 2 of original comment)

Just for clarification, I'm for "Gamergate (video games)".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest just GamerGate (controversy) Halfhat (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest everybody read WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP and WP:N and abide by them, also avoid nonstarter arguments like "Reliable sources are so biased! Why can't we base the article on something else instead?". Artw (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Obvious bias in reliable sources is something we should be aware of and attempt to manage as well. It's not a non-starter (though "use others" is not a solution) --MASEM (t) 14:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is there are many other policies too, and they aren't intended to be applied blindly, other than legal stuff. That means there will be some debate about them even if everyone understands them fully, that's why I think we need to start having debates while maintaining civility. Halfhat (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please, no more "But the press is all biased!" either. That's absolutely a nonstarter. Artw (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That's burying your head in the sand to one of the problems with trying to build this article. I'm not speaking to the levels that some proGG believe the press is all colluding to control the narrative, but the press (both VG and mainstream) have biases because part of the debate of GG is the ethics of their profession so of course they will be even the smallest amount biased in covering it. Obviously, we're not to be rejecting mainstream sources, but we have to be aware they have a non-neutral stance here. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Plus, as the press has said before, there is some bias from the pro-GG being leaderless and thus just harder to cover. Halfhat (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It is simply not our job to do their PR. Artw (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Its our job to not take a side in an issue and summarize an event as neutrally as possible; understanding that press sources will possess some bias in GG is necessary to know that we cannot simply parrot them and instead use good judgement to stick to the neutral facts they present in the situation and if opinion is needed making sure it is not reported in WP's voice. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We are not going to spin what RSs say to make GamerGate look better. Artw (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

And so we shouldn't be spinning sources to make it worse, either, which is what is happening. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Also describing the allegations against Quinn as anything other than false is a WP:BLP violation so please stop beating that dead horse. Artw (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we should do what North did which is say "Now discredited" or similar. False has connotations of dishonesty which isn't good either. Halfhat (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw 'unsubstantiated' in the history, I'm good with that as well if 'false' is going to be a serious issue of contention. Strongjam (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"Unsubstantiated" leaves open the possibility that it will be substantiated in the future. "Now discredited" is better, but to be honest, given the BLP concerns, I much prefer the unambiguous "false". False allegations don't have to be dishonest - just incorrect. - Bilby (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not that it has to, it's about connotations. I don't see anything wrong with "Now Discredited" it says it's not true with no connotation of dishonesty. Halfhat (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

False doesn't have those connotation either. You can say someone is wrong without it implying they are dishonest. If we do go with 'now discredited' can we drop the 'now'? Seems superfluous to me. Strongjam (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Well "False" alone doesn't, but "False Accusation" does, it is sometimes used to mean slander. Halfhat (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You want us to make it look like this is the good kind of false accusation? Artw (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"erroneous accusation" then? Or "baseless"? "Now-discredited" sounds like it was credible but then someone showed that it wasn't. There was never any positive review so it was never a credible accusation. Strongjam (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Erroneous seems fine to me, baseless seems a bit loaded. Halfhat (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Updated to erroneous, lets see if it sticks Strongjam (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Point of order: an encyclopedia does not assume the responsibility of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?. Also, keep in mind that the thrust of "pro-GG" was bias in gaming media, not a broadside against journalism ethics overall. If this whole thing was largely confined to gamer media covering GG, that's be one thing; but we have piles of mainstream sources now that are far removed from the direct topic area that are largely dismissive of "but ethics". Tarc (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It is still is their opinion this is far removed from ethics. There is a lot of assumptions being made to assert that GG is "not ethics"; it is opinion, not fact, and we need to respect that in our writing. --MASEM (t) 15:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That's what we're trying to do here; acknowledged and reflect the opinion of the majority of reliable sources, in the face of the minority of fringe sources that say otherwise. Was Barack Obama literally and in fact born in Hawaii in 1961? I wasn't there, and my TARDIS is in the shop, so I cannot say for sure that it is a "fact" that he was born there, neither can anyone else. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources that have covered the controversy, examined the evidence, and heard the views of the participants concluded that, yes, the evidence that he was born in Hawaii in 1961 is a nigh-incontrovertible opinion. Reliable sources are deemed reliable due to their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When writing articles, Wikipedia editors put their faith in reliable sources, trusting that when they say XYZ, there's generally a good reason why they said XYZ. It isn't blind faith, but questioning the reliability of the NY Times to the WAPost and others, as some have done here, is a mighty high hurdle to clear. Tarc (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledging the majority opinion, yes, we're absolutely right to do. But this article in its present state, rams that opinion hard and to the point of stating that what is claimed in the opinion is fact, where there is very little hard evidence to say exactly who, what, or why things happened the way they did. That's what the issue is here. With Birthers, there's hard evidence - the actual records, the actual certificate, etc., to clearly dismiss the claims of the birthers. There is nothing like that here - both sides of the argument. Hence everything we're talking about is primarily opinion and needs to be clearly voiced as opinion, and because we're not a soapbox, we should not be heavily using opinion statements to summarize something factual. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that we have to treat any information that you or anyone else disagrees with as 'opinion.' That's not how this works. If most of our sources only go so far as to say that gamergate claims to be about ethics, that's what we have to do as well. If they go so far as to actively discredit these claims, as an increasing number do, we need to say that as well. Believe it or not it is possible to make a judgement about a movement based on its actions without needing to read the minds of every participant. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

For one, I don't disagree with many of the antiGG sources in terms of the argument. What I do strongly disagree is that these sources are still reporting their opinions and impressions of what GG is , and that here is being used to try to document that as fact, which it is not. Judgement is not facts. We have to keep that in mind here. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Our sources are using common sense and logic to reach a conclusion based on the facts, as we can trust our sources to do. We don't have good sources that gamergate is actually about ethics. We do have good sources that gamergate has caused a great deal of misogynistic harassment towards women working in the gaming industry. That's really all there is to it. We can not continue to present the weakly sourced claims that gamergate is about ethics and well sourced fact of its large scale harassment side by side as equally valid, equally sourced viewpoints. We have to give these ideas the weight our sources do and treat them the way our sources treat them. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

A source can still be reliable while having opinions and biases, I think we need to separate the facts from opinions and present each, if at all, as such. The thing with the example given is that there is significantly more verifiable information about Obama's birth than the thoughts and motives behind a large leaderless generally anonymous group. Halfhat (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Another dead horse to avoid: trying to use sources showing GG has no interest in actual ethical issues regarding AAA gaming to show the opposite. Artw (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"Gamergate" without the "controversy" is a non notable, ineffectual set of twits on the internet. the only thing that has any coverage is the controversy caused by the fact that a significant portion of the twits involved terroristic threats, directed mostly at women and feminists and the people who stood up and said the kind of basic truism: "harassment is wrong". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum, please take your personal opinions somewhere else where it is more appropriate. Also, try to be more civil.Omegastar (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please tell me how this is a BLP issue

[18]

Because if the general accusation of a broad group of people and no individual about something is a BLP issue, then the bulk of this article is a BLP issue against the proGG side as well. You can't have it both ways. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed as usual. BLP is not applicable to amorphous groups such as "game journalists and developers" if it doesn't apply to "Gamergater supporters".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

if we imply that the false accusations against Zoe Quinn are anything other than that then it is a BLP issue. Feel free to look for an alternate wording that seperates out other concrete concerns GamerGate have expressed. Artw (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest reading the diff before commenting. It does not concern the Quinn allegations.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec)And while ArtW commented over at the ArbCom case with this [19], the statement is about more than just one allegation of conflict of interest. If the statement was just about Quinn's COI, yes, I agree we have to mark it as dismissed or proven wrong or whatever. But there are a larger number of issues the proGG side have presented, not targetted at any one person, so you cannot say that all of those have been dismissed, particularly when several sites altered policies in response and that they have self-identified that they have several ethics issues they know exist and would love to fix but the nature of the industry makes it hard to. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you're in a position to complain about inaccurate edit summaries, considering that you reverted me using the old canard about using sources on the ethical concerns that gamergate should find more interesting than a relatively minor indie dev's sex lives if they were really about ethics to prove that gamergate is about ethics. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia cannot take that as its voice. We are to be neutral. And the statement in question was about several ethical allegations, not just the singular one at Quinn. While Quinn's has clearly been dismissed, others still exist and some even affirmed by the press, so they are are not all "false" or the like. That's exactly what I had in my edit summary. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but we can't do original research here. Using the sources that have pointed out ethical concerns that gamergate could be talking about but isn't to prove that gamergate is really about ethics is WP:SYNTH, because you're patching together two sourced facts ('gamergate says its about ethics' and 'ethical issues exist') to try to prove a point that your sources do not support. Just because green cheese exists it doesn't mean the moon is made of it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between stating in Wikipedia's voice that GG was never about ethics and all about harassment, and stating that the majority of the press believe GG was never about ethics and all about harassment. Since there's no evidence to prove, only conclusions that it is, the former cannot be used to develop the article. That's not SYNTH at all. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not 'stated in Wikipedia's voice that GG was never about ethics and all about harassment.' I'm merely qualifying the movement's ethics claims as 'claims' because that's how the sources we have describe them. I'm not calling them 'false,' I'm just avoiding us saying in Wikipedia's voice that they are true, because we don't have sources for that type of statement. And I didn't say your removal of the entirely appropriate and sourced qualifiers are 'synth;' I said your repeated references to genuine ethical issues as if they prove that gamergate is really about ethics are 'synth.' They are: if our sources only say 'A' and 'B' and don't say they equal 'C,' we can't say that either. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We've discussed this at length elsewhere, so I don't think you have any cause to be surprised. WP:BLP is a serious policy and we should not be brushing up against violating it even we indirectly reference the subject. Artw (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Either BLP applies to all broad groups evenly (meaning that the proGG side has to be treated with the same respect you are giving the journalist side) or it doesn't apply to groups at all. And I'm pretty sure it is the latter based on the past discussions. --MASEM (t) 17:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You can attempt to apply that logic if you like, I doubt it will go far. In the meantime feel free to trying rewording the statement that seperates out the "valid" concerns of GamerGate from the ones relating to Quinn. Artw (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to, without unnecessarily complicating and biasing the lead (as one would have to talk about Quinn first to then exclude that). The version I had neither affirms or denies that any allegation of COI interest was true, false, or disproven, and given that we then talk about the specific one towards Quinn and mention of its being proven wrong shortly after, that removes any possible interpretation of BLP in that. --MASEM (t) 17:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It does just seem like policy abuse to try to use BLP there. It should be obvious where I stand here, I just ask for civility, insults and unsubstantiated allegations just drag the conversation down a pit. Halfhat (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, you were just involved in a discussion of this so the BLP implications should not come as a surprise. As for civility I would suggest you stop hitting your reset button so much so people don't have to keep having the same boring conversations. Artw (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no need for that. I think the problem is that most convo's end in stalemate rather than a resolution, so the dispute just creates another conversation. Halfhat (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that, according to many of our sources—On the Media, Vox, Wired, etc.—the GamerGate movement claims to be about general "ethics in journalism" but is focusing only on a handful of very specific people, most of them women. We discuss this in the article. Obviously, BLP doesn't apply to unnamed "journalists" as a whole, but it does apply when "journalism" is actually "a smokescreen for the misogynistic harassment of Quinn and others". Imagine for a moment that this movement was ostensibly about "reform of criminals" but focused only on a very small number of named living persons who hadn't even been convicted of crimes, and that this duplicity was widely covered in the media. BLP wouldn't require that we use words like "alleged" and "purported" in claims about an unnamed group, but let's get real, that's not what—who—this is about. GamerGate is naming names, and per BLP that that certainly does require a more conservative approach. Woodroar (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Not only is gamergate focusing on women, they are not even journalists so they rightly see the "journalistic ethics" as a complete sham. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The threats against Gamergate supporters paragraph

I've been heavily editing the paragraph to remove the highly charged descriptions of the threats that they've reported. We do not include any details on the threats received by the anti-GamerGate side (aside from the ones to Quinn, which is again because she's the impetus, and the USU threat because the threat itself was analyzed) so we do not need to say that Boogie was threatened to become a widower (just saying his wife was threatened is sufficient) or that the John Doe gamergater was threatened with being mutilated (again, just saying the threat exists is sufficient).

And, as I said in the section above, the sourcing for this is poor. Most of the sourcing for Yiannopolous's syringe is single updates to two pieces and a single sentence in another.

• Is Reason.com a reliable source? I'm personally not sure.
• TechCrunch and Kotaku include post-publishing "updates" that mention the syringe
• Is Inquisitr a reliable source? I don't think it is.
• This piece by The Washington Post covers it, so that passes (but only mentiones one Jane Doe and an identified but non-notable John Doe)
• Is Stuff.co.nz a reliable source? Or NZGamer as thats where it was originally published?

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Once again, Kotaku is eithre a valid source or it isn't. If it isn't, there's 4 existing citations and accompanying statements that need to go. Reason is largely an opinion source - it's as valid as any op-ed source cited here, but I think more generally, more reliance on news sources and less reliance on op-eds is called for across the board here. Between the Kotaku and Washington Post source, I think the attacks on pro-GG figures, especially Milo Yiannopolos, is well sourced and should be included. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, I am not calling into question the reliablility of Kotaku. Do you see me saying anything about the reliability of Kotaku here? NO. I am saying that their one sentence coverage of Milo's syringe is not significant coverage of the event. Neither is Tech Crunch's. Neither is Reason's. Washington Post doesn't include the word "syringe" or mention Milo at all. It talks about two non-notable people who say they were harassed. And you still do not address the reliability of the New Zealand news sites. Why are they the only ones talking about Boogie? Is he Kiwi? Or is it just the only venue The Devil's Advocate could find that talks about the threat to Boogie's wife? Answer these questions rather than put words in my mouth.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem with stuff.co.nz, looks like a legitimate paper chain. I'd question using NZGamer in this context though. Strongjam (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Reason is reliable. Business Insider linked to it. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because Business Insider links to something does not mean that Wikipedia can consider as something that meets WP:RS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the case here but if multiple highly reliable sources link to something that would be a SPS or similar in a manner to highlight that SPS post, it's reasonable for us to include with the notion the RSes pointed to that. However, one source is not sufficient. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you try to at least be professional in this? Titling things like the way you did seems incredibly condescending. Dermato1 19:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dermato1 (talk • contribs)

You're right. Also, welcome back to Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the references to Milo's syringe as Kotaku and TechCrunch's coverage is an afterthought and Reason.com is not a reliable source. The rest of the paragraph has been rewritten and Boogie remains included.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the lack of user feedback + proposed solution

GG is notoriously hard to explain, and I concerned that most of us already understand it, so it's hard to tell if people can understand it without their comments. Now I understand why the talk page was semi protected, and I think we should keep it that way to prevent disruption, however I think we should create a second open talk page for user feedback, there will be a number of answered questions etc. but we can ignore them easier, so only people that are in the right mood will answer them, and if you find it frustrating you can ignore it completely, while contributing here. Halfhat (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

They would disregard all that feedback as SPAs I'm sure Loganmac (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Griping about what 'they' would do is not constructive and adds nothing to the discussion. Please be more constructive in your contributions. Omegastar (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not hard to explain any more. Reliable sources are more and more coming to the same conclusion - it is an " on-going troll crusade known as #gamergate wherein a small rabble is using a trumped up scandal as cover for a full on attack on female game makers and game critics. " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That point has already been extensively covered on this page. But there are obviously numerous people who identify with GamerGate who are clearly not trolls or mysoginists. Perhaps sources should be found that explain this part of GamersGate? Omegastar (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be great if people would start providing sources to back up their attempts to minimize the movement's misogyny, but the fact is that the primary reason they don't is because there aren't any. We have sources for the fact that gamergaters claim their movement is about ethics in journalism, but none that treat it as anything more than a claim; the sources that exist are almost exclusively pertaining to the harassment aspect. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Where did I say I wanted to minimize the movement's misogyny?Omegastar (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Cut it out now, all of you, this is not a forum to argue about GamerGate. These arguments help no one. Halfhat (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it, like I'm said I'm more concerned about people being confused. Halfhat (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, this Talk page is protected because of the frequency of BLP violations, not because we'd rather avoid getting or responding to feedback. Sadly, a separate page for feedback would only be another page to watch for BLP concerns. Woodroar (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Good point, I thought it was more just because of the repetitive unconstructive comments for new users. Though could there not be a report link at the top? That way anyone reading it could flag up a BLP violation. Halfhat (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the software has that capability. We'd have to do what we do now, manually report each instance to BLPN or ANI and find someone to REVDEL the comments. We do have admins watching the page, but the discussion often moves too fast to catch violations, and that's with it protected. The MediaWiki software is great for a number of different things, but forum moderation is not one of them. Woodroar (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The main feedback that I have (and that I've seen other editors give and be shot down from both sides) is that the article is a hot mess. It's suffused with needless quotes, high on its own sense of complexity and importance (so we've got a background section that's longer than it needs to be and several pseudo-background sections which drag on just as long), and the prose is dreadful (this coming from an editor notoriously bad at prose). I know why these problems arise but we've got to stop shitting on editors leaving comments complaining about the length or the complexity and start taking the complaints at face value. Protonk (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Anil Dash

If we're using minimal sourcing as per the above, then I propose we add something to the page regarding the harassment received by blogger Anil Dash.

• Death and Taxes (owned by SpinMedia)
• TechCrunch (used in other capacities on the page)

This would arguably be adding a section that says that Anil Dash, an individual who never (as far as I am aware) wrote about video games or GamerGate was harassed online at the behest of Mike Cernovich after he accused Dash of being involved with Gawker, and then bribed him by claiming to donate to charity. The DT piece also touches upon the "No true Scotsman" thing before Singal wrote his article (I think). Also Dash (via Twitter) says that Cernovich doxxed him and stalked him for a year in this series of tweets (scroll up for the related tweets). Is there a feasible place for this in the larger article?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Slate on serious overview of the GG moderate, including the self-policing towards harassment

[20] I think I saw another source this morning about the self-policing but I would have to review. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This could be used to supplement the Tsukayama piece on "Gamergate could end in a week".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

semantic issue: controversy or movement

The introduction says gamergate is a "controversy", but in the body there are references to "#GamerGate movement" and even "GamerGater". I honestly don't know which it is. It's a nebulous enough conversation that it is already hard to define the sides, but I honestly can't even tell if a "GamerGater" is someone who objects to women commenting on games, or someone who objects to misogynistic expression.

Galexander (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The nebulous nature of the whole thing makes it hard for media to describe and not something we can really fix here. Strongjam (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a Gamergate movement and a controversy around that movement. The movement itself is not notable by itself, but the controversy it created is.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that it's not really stated which side is the gg side and which is the anti. It may be worth adding "purported (by Gamergate supporters)" or similar to define it.TuxedoMonkey (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we could call the article "Gamergate (video gaming)" (which aligns with video game terminology like Boss (video gaming)) and thus say in the lead that "GG is the name of both a movement and the controversy surrounding the movement that..." --MASEM (t) 20:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Or we can argue that the ant isn't the primary use anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

My past observations on naming schemes is that something like a standardized scientific term is always going to win out over a pop culture thing, regardless of predominace of sources. (see, for example that Avatar the film is the one disambiguated over as aspect of a religious faith.) But using (video gaming) would allow us to be clear the article is about the interconnected movement and controversy in the lead. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The only reason this article is ostensibly about the controversy and not the movement is because very little information sourced from the movement's advocates has yet to be published anywhere, or if it has, was not deemed verifiable by some editors. I have no doubt that this will change soon once information is allowed to disseminate while advocates are given the chance to defend the movement in the mainstream media, and that is one place where we will be able to extrapolate something more concrete.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I see it as a hashtag with a movement supporting it and a controversy around it. The movement itself is much harder to cover than the sources with RS Halfhat (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

whatever you may see, the reliable sources dont. they see harassment and a bunch of incoherent and false claims surrounding it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The current article title is succinct and descriptive of the whats & the whys of "Gamergate". This article is about the controversy over legions of anonymous gamers harassing a variety of people, beginning with Zoe Quinn and continuing on with mostly female journalists who criticized the anonymous acts. "Gamergate" is not primarily about ethics in gamer journalism; its secondary nature does not justify a move away from the present title. Tarc (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Mostly female journalists? Only one i can think of is leigh alexander. I thought most of the journalists were male? Retartist (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Didn't Jenn Frank quit due to the backlash of whatever she did that I can't remember?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

iirc Mattie Brice stepped back for a while but changed her mind when she realized quitting didn't stop the abuse. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Jenn Frank wrote an article September 1 about how gg is all about misogyny, wrote an article September 11 announcing retirement, then wrote another (unrelated) article on the 19th. I think she's stayed retired after that.TuxedoMonkey (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Adobe statement on the movement

http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2014/10/when-anti-bullying-efforts-backfire.html?adbid=527179560870096896&adbpl=tw&adbpr=63786611&scid=social34572897

Refered to here http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/28/7086001/adobe-says-anti-bullying-tweet-backfired-distances-from-gamergate Halfhat (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Already added. And used to trim that section down a bit, as it was way too long and trivial. Protonk (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

New Slate piece

The latest article from David Auerbach of Slate. A lot of good material in that article we can use.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

#Slate on serious overview of the GG moderate, including the self-policing towards harassment.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Explanation of revert

Just to be clearer on this issue, I reverted this because we do not need to have such a heavy level of quoting in that footnote or prose. It is being used as a footnote to hold quoted information from the pages. Let's keep it short and to the point.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: Please do not expand all those footnotes into prose explanations of the publications' statements. Just leave them as bare quotations. And that one in The Verge is worded oddly.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed maybe, but I think it's still worth clarifying what site The Washington Post is talking about. What's wrong with The Verge's wording? I couldn't find a very good place for it, but the spot I chose seemed good since The Verge used the phrase "seems so far" which implies that the legitimacy of the claims are an uncertainty.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind, somehow I missed "Debate over legitimacy of ethics concerns".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe not because that section is more meta than it appears at first glance. I can't find where it fits in the article anywhere else but the footnote.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Incredible bias

WP:DROPTHESTICK; Discuss this is the many other sections above. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As someone who had hoped to learn more about the roots of the "Gamergate controversy", I came to this article, as Wikipedia is usually a great source for unbiased information, and is kept up pretty well. With that being said, I have never been more ashamed as a defender of Wikipedia after reading this article... the bias is dripping through in almost every paragraph, in everything from the broad generalizations of gamer culture to the description of the term "social justice warriors" as "a derogatory term for people in the video-game industry who use the medium to talk about political issues". It is clear even to me that large passages of this were written by people with very little knowledge of "gamer culture" and additionally, people with a clear agenda. I don't edit articles often, so as someone with an outside perspective, I'd say this needs almost a total re-write. But that's just my two cents. Beachdude42 01:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachdude42 (talk • contribs) As someone who has edited Wikipedia, like yourself, you should be fully aware that Wikipedia is only written based on what can be verified in reliable sources, and at the current point of history, when this is a subject that is barely 2 months old, this is how the world at large (BBC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Verge, etc.) all view the goings on of Gamergate. It is not the fault of Wikipedia that a leaderless movement whose only standard for membership is typing "#gamergate" in a tweet or other social media post is not best represented in the press, when they only have the actions of a highly vocal minority, of at least what is now being recognized as trolls, existing within the group to further goals and agendas. Wikipedia editors cannot write any articles from personal experience, which is why it reads like someone who is completely separated from gamer culture has written it. That is at its best neutrality. Someone with no vested or personal interest in a topic writing about it. You are free to edit the article to address concerns, but be aware that the artcle is currently under general sanctions to deal with large torrents of users who are only here to push an agenda or point of view on the page to detract from people doing their best to adhere to the neutral point of view policy, particularly its rules on not giving undue weight to minority view points that are not addressed in reliable sources or regarded by the public at large as correct.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC) I understand that, but I feel there are enough common goals shared among MOST members of the Gamergate "movement" that the movement itself deserves larger weight in the article than it currently has compared to the backlash against it. Beachdude42 02:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC) Do you have a different reliably-sourced definition of "social justice warrior" that you'd like to propose? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC) I tend to agree that the bit that mentions the term "Social Justice Warrior" isn't great: it's one of many sections of the article that have suffered from a kind of 'quote creep,' where tendentious opposition to anything that is seen as in some way 'anti-gamergate' eventually results in editors using direct quotes from single sources rather than simply using the sources to write cohesive prose. -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC) Its a sad day when Encyclopedia Dramatica, not even Uncyclopedia, but ED, has a less biased, more accurate depiction of the memeings. --The Defender of Light Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing >Inventory< 02:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC) Couldn't agree more, that article actually DOES give a better summary than this article does. Sad. Beachdude42 02:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachdude42 (talk • contribs) These aren't "memeings," these are actual serious events which impact real people's lives. That we treat these issues as such and not as targets for cheap lulz is to Wikipedia's credit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What counts as a reliable source and what isn't?

Apparently only sources that describe GamerGate as misogynistic counts is "reputable" all of a sudden. (Redacted)Kotaku becomes "unreliable" when it describes a syringe being sent to a pro GamerGate writer. Slate counts as reputable but Reason doesn't. Salon counts as reputable but Breitbart doesn't. New York Mag counts as reliable but TechCrunch doesn't. Why is this? What determines what is reliable and what isn't? Only sources that describe GamerGate as misogynistic? Sy9045 (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Short answer is that WP:RS and WP:RSN decide. If there's contention about a specific source, it should be brought to WP:RSN, but check the archives using the search feature for past discussions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Past discussions are here and here. Seems to be questions about editorial oversight. The about page doesn't give much info on that front. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. But you've been reading Reddit wrong. I have not said that Kotaku became unreliable when it covered Milo's syringe. I said that the coverage in the Kotaku article does not reflect proper due weight for being something of note to mention on this article because it's a one sentence correction rather than any sort of real focus. (Redacted)—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop questioning my motives and stop insulting me. I haven't been reading "Reddit" to form my opinions. There is no objectivity here whatsoever. Slate and Salon are quoted profusely while other articles that talk about journalistic standards in game reviews are stifled. Multiple sources that report on the syringe incident is not sufficient while sourcing content from one single opinion piece is justified apparently. Even Wikipedia's very own Jimmy Wales says it's "obvious" there was collusion involved in game reviews. This page has been a huge embarrassment to the Wikipedia community. No attempts at objectivity whatsoever.Sy9045 (talk) 05:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Slate and Salon are non-gaming media looking from the outside in so out of everyone they would be most objective in examining the controversy. And there are not "multiple sources" reporting on the syringe incident. Three different publications list single sentence discussions of the syringe as having existed, and two of those sources are simply updates to already published pieces. In my opinion, such a minor level of discussion on what would by all means be a big thing, seems to say that it's an unimportant footnote in the greater subject that is what this article is about.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

And you think TechCrunch, Breitbart, and Reason are devoted gaming media and aren't "looking from the outside in"? Really? The arbitrary definitions for what count as "reliable" and what doesn't is perplexing to say the least. You cite opinion pieces from one single article, but turn around and insist that multiple sources citing something is irrelevant because lengthy essays aren't being written about it. I say there is more of a political agenda going on here and objectivity has taken a back seat. I can't believe Wikipedia has devolved into this.Sy9045 (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Techcrunch has weak editorial control. Brietbart is a 'news' site best known for publishing outright lies to discredit political enemies. Reason is, iirc, mainly used for opinion sources, but I'm not sure what source you're talking about so I couldn't tell you for sure what the issue is there. But basically, if most sources that give pro-gamergate perspectives are not considered reliable, it's not necessarily a sign that editors are not evaluating sources fairly. Couldn't it also be a sign that reliable sources are not saying the kinds of things that gamergate would like this article to say? -- TaraInDC (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Where is your proof that TechCrunch has weaker editorial control than Slate or Salon? Where is your proof that Breitbart "lies" and Salon and Slate don't? The burden of proof is on you. Why are Reason opinion pieces not qualified but opinion pieces from Slate or Salon fine? What concrete rules should we use to determine what's "reliable" and what isn't? Is it just based on what one feels like?Sy9045 (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, I am not saying that these websites are not reliable sources. Except Breitbart. Breitbart is not a reliable source. What I am saying is that for the level of coverage dedicated to the syringe in Kotaku, TechCrunch, and Reason, it is not a significant event to cover.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I really do not understand. Why is Slate and Salon "reliable" but Breitbart not? What rules or parameters are you using to determine that?Sy9045 (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You can see why Breitbart is not a reliable source by looking at the article on them here. They have outright lied about what they've written and manipulated the evidence to suit their agenda.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you just straight up cite a Wikipedia page to justify them not being reliable? There are a total of 6 controversies on that page. If you look at the New York Times page, there are 7. As far as I know 7 is greater than 6. Should we remove all sources from the New York Times now? Do you see how ridiculous that would be? Anyway, citing Wikipedia is the clumsiest and weakest proof I've ever seen. Please show me concrete scientific proof that Breitbart is not as reliable as any of the other sources that are being cited as "reliable". You made the claim, now prove it. I'll wait.Sy9045 (talk) 06:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not just Ryulong's claim or mine. That's the firm and established consensus. If you'd like to contest it the next step is to ask at WP:RSN. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is just untrue. I checked the archives and there are differing opinions on it, including differing opinions on the New York Times, MSNBC, and Slate. I would love for you to show me where the "consensus" was established on Breitbart because I couldn't find it.Sy9045 (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You can search the archives if you like, you'll see a large number of editors saying the same thing. WP:RSN. That's your next step if you want to appeal this. We don't re-argue issues like this every time a new editor brings them up: go ask for outside comments at the appropriate noticeboard. -- TaraInDC (talk) 07:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I did search the archives and I couldn't find where the consensus was established. Like I told you, there were multiple viewpoints. You made the claim that there was a consensus established, which means the burden of proof lies on you. Where is it? Where's the proof?Sy9045 (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources are not reliable by default until proven unreliable, but the opposite. The burden is not on me to prove to you that Breitbart is unreliable, or even to point to a single talkpage section where the source was discussed. The fact is that Brietbart's reputation is so poor it's never even been given serious consideration as a source on this page despite being mentioned frequently: therefor, there is a consensus that it is not useful as a source. If you'd like to change that, the burden is on you to establish a consensus for Breitbart's reliability. So if you'd like to make a case for the site's reliability, take it to WP:RSN. That's what it's there for. This is just the way things are done on Wikipedia. -- TaraInDC (talk) 07:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's 6 controversies in a shorter lifetime than the New York Times has been around.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so it only counts as reputable if there are fewer than 6 controversies every 10 years or some arbitrary definition that I don't understand? Even if you read the Breitbart page, most of those controversies are innocuous (like Nancy Pelosi being photoshopped on Miley Cyrus' body or mistakenly citing a Boston.com source, which cited a European source that turned out to be incorrect). Another controversy involved reporting on Anthony Weiner's sexting scandal, which Weiner admitted to and which multiple news media sites like the New York Times and Salon reported on as well. Regardless, citing Wikipedia as proof of unreliability is completely unscientific anyway. What concrete scientific proof are you using to determine what's reliable and what's not reliable?Sy9045 (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Read WP:RS. Breitbart is exclusively known for being a highly biased and unreliable source due to being known for these major breaches of journalistic integrity. There have been multiple discussions as to why it does not qualify for WP:RS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually did read the archives on Breitbart. Like I told the above poster, there were multiple viewpoints and no established consensus. There were also multiple viewpoints on Slate, Salon and the New York Times too. Where exactly is the "established consensus"? I spent almost an hour looking for it and couldn't find it. Maybe you can help.Sy9045 (talk) 07:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm really not kidding, stop taking about each other and stop insulting each other, it's against the purpose of Wikipedia, violating the GG general sanctions will get you banned from these articles . Dreadstar ☥ 04:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Anti-feminism and right wing opportunists

I've written a paragraph based on this piece by Zaid Jilani for Salon here. Tweaks and comments welcome.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's quite perplexing that you would cite something from one single opinion piece when you insisted above that something cited needs multiple sources. So opinion pieces are now fair game? Can we cite opinion pieces from those who aren't so anti GamerGate? I have a feeling that those opinion pieces don't qualify, am I right?Sy9045 (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a whole article on a spcific subject and not three sentences from three separate articles about other things. Your criticism is noted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Christina Sommers gave an opinion piece on MSNBC yesterday on Ronan Farrow's show that explained pro GamerGate's side. Mediaite reported on it under the title "#GamerGate Defender to MSNBC: ‘Not Anti-Women,’ Just ‘Pro-Transparency’". Can we cite that too or what? Where are you exactly drawing the line here?Sy9045 (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It reads to me that your summary of the Mordor thing (copies were given out, praise was required) differs a little from the article's description (praisers were given copies), which differs a bit from the Forbes piece cited in the article (a contract was offered to receive a copy in exchange for various conditions, including praise, and oversights). Maybe make it very broad, such as "involving the restriction of review copies to positive reviewers" or else cite a source that treats the issue at greater length than a couple of lines, such as the Forbes one. TuxedoMonkey (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the summarization I made was incorrect. I will look at the Forbes article and incorporate the new information within it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Drop box for potential sources for which you do not have specific content suggestion at this time

• Gamergate supporters party at strip club - I guess thats what you do to help counter the image that you are merely about sexual harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how going to a strip club constitutes "sexual harassment", but that's neither here nor there. It may be a worthwhile source for direct, sourced statements from some Gamergate supporters, especially the 8Chan subset. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

perchance i was rude in my last messagical message. My point still stands that this has a very loose connection to GamerGate, and does seem like a needless character smearing of a disabled person. --The Defender of Light Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing >Inventory< 03:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If the article decides to quote Brennan about Gamergate, this could be used in conjunction with other interviews he's done. Aside from that it seems to just be fluff.TuxedoMonkey (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

An unusual sourcing quandary

Okay, I saw someone remove a detail from the background section stating that the gamer identity had come to be identified primarily with men. This was claimed to be "unsourced" and I was confused as I had specifically recalled a source cited at the end of that paragraph making this argument. When I checked the sources I found none of them contained the claim, but then I noticed this Vox article had been updated on October 13, despite being published well before that date. I recalled them having a section that was not in the current version and checked an archive. Sure enough, the archived version does contain the detail about the gamer identity, despite the current version not having it. This does not appear to be a correction as no note is made about the change, so I am curious about how we handle the matter. Should the older version still be used as a source?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

We could theoretically use the archive parameters of cite-web? If it was in the piece when it was added to the page, then the fact that we have an original accessdate as being evidence of this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If none of the other numerous sources point this out, wouldn't that be a fringe point? Willhesucceed (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that the original version of the article had an extra section. I will revert my change. DPRoberts534 (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Milo interview

Is The David Pakman Show an RS?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljIMMCQyexA

Willhesucceed (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you describe what content from the interview you would like to possibly incorporate into the article? We should not have to guess what you want to be done with these constant posts.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

And why should we feature content from the Yiannopoulos interview over his Wu interview? Why choose one over the other?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)