Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign): Difference between revisions

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)

It might be a good idea for non gamers to explain what GamerGate actually is. Yes, it's a controversy, but which side are "GamerGate supporters" on? It's not at all clear from reading this! Simongarrett (talk) 11:06, 30 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? --MASEM (t) 05:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC) For the bot. --George Ho (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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 think 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 plurality of sources?

(Was "near-majority" but clearly meant plurality or near-unanimity --MASEM (t) 21:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)) (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)
• Comment - What the heck is a "near majority of sources"??? Forty-nine percent? Carrite (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Unequivocal yes Wikipedia is to document disputes, not engage in them. The very first bullet point under WP: YESPOV is "Avoid Stating Opinions as Facts". There is a tendency that when an opinion gets large enough to assert the opinion in Wikipedia's voice as fact. In such circumstances it is important to remember that WP:IMPARTIAL is also a facet of WP: NPOV. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• No As someone before said. If the reliable sources are pointing one way that is the way we follow. If the tone is too preachy while the sources are not preachy then change it. If the sources are preachy then that is what we follow. Mention of the points is more then ample coverage, just like for example in the evolution article there is a mention of creationism and that is about it. Hundreds, thousands,or millions of people can come to this page and argue. This does not mean we have to placate them anymore here as we do at the evolution article. We follow reliable sources end of story. Then again in the end I am all for waiting a few more weeks or maybe 2 more months when all of this has died down and then to see where the coverage should be. NathanWubs (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, although it would seem that the reference to a "near-majority" should be to a "large majority" or "near-unanimity". Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, as theoretically it is always possible for an article to become too biased. This is a suggestive hypothetical. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:47, 1 November 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)
• No. Wikipedia must describe events as they are described by reputable news sources. Only if academic articles find that the truth is different should this article deviate from the news media's portrayal. Darth Viller (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• No as we report what reliable sources say. If people say these sources are not reliable. They should bring that up and show through reliable sources that these sources are not reliable. As that probably will not be the case I will stick with me no. If any of you think that giving due weight to reliable sources is not correct. I suggest you head over to evolution and try to argue there that creationism needs more coverage and the evolution page is to bias. NathanWubs (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• No. As e.g. User:Tarc has written above, and as Q4 of the FAQ has it, the article is neutral just insofar as it reflects the RS consensus on the issue, which I believe it presently does. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 22:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• No - An article can, as noted, be supported by a large majority of sources but still be biased, but that implies that there is something wrong with the sources (in this case, the mainstream media and gaming media). However, that argument (journalistic bias) hasn't been shown. A more likely explanation is that the reliable sources are reliable and that there are misogynistic elements in gaming culture. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 1 November 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)

I personally don't care if the MRWIs use the term "SJW" because it makes them easier to see for what they are. Carrite (talk) 11:27, 29 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)

Thanks for this. I did get a good laugh Seriouslyonlyusernameleft (talk) 16:49, 29 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)

The introduction does need a bit more text for non-gamers. What is GamerGate? Which side are GamerGate supporters on? And what do they support. What is pro-GG and what is anti-GG - which side is "misogynist"? All this is obvious to those that already understand, but they won't need to read the article. I suggest a few sentences that make sense to someone that has no background knowledge of the affair. Simongarrett (talk) 11:23, 30 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)

Here is some coverage of it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:12, 30 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)

Wu's already given ample coverage. MY's description of Gamergate, and his criticism of Wu seem appropriate to include. Willhesucceed (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

And no, you "should not have to guess" what to do with a source. You should investigate the source and decide whether anything's worthy of inclusion. Clearly my opinion doesn't matter, since it's always shot down, so I leave it to others to decide what to do with sources. Willhesucceed (talk) 07:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure what you want to do. You simply post these links and don't explain what we're supposed to get out of them. Most of this interview so far is just a retort to Wu's prior interview. An interview like this does not necessarily validate his opinions when they heavily violate WP:BLP to cover. Do you want us to say he doesn't believe that the women were threatened? Do you want us to say that he thinks it's really about ethics in journalism and feminist bullying? Give us more than a link. Give us suggestions for improving the article with the content of the link.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Because her points are already included through her interviews on other outlets? Loganmac (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That's because she involuntarily became a part of the debate and Milo inserted himself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It might be usable for his opinions if we determine that his opinion is notable, but an unsubstantiated opinion that casts aspersions on a living person and insinuates wrongdoing would seem to be right out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

A general thought on the RS matter first . This is an interview from a source that hasn't been used before featuring a contributor from a site that is mocked as one of Wikipedia's least reliable sources. Moreover it's not our job to give equal coverage to anyone inserting an opinion. Is there any particular reason why this person's opinion is more notable or trustworthy? To quote WP:BLPSOURCES "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources", and the bar for that is currently fairly high in this article. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 08:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. There's really no point in me even providing sources, is there? This is ridiculous. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If your source is a well-known ideologue making entirely-unsupported accusations of wrongdoing against a person, then no, there's really no point in providing that because it has no business in an encyclopedia article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Unlike the ideologues that subscribe to your view of the matter, of course, who are perfectly allowable. How do you guys not see what you're doing to this article? Willhesucceed (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If there are any unsupported accusations of wrongdoing against named people in this article, they should be removed. Not sure what you are arguing, but I don't believe any such thing should be allowable from either side. Unsupported claims and/or insinuations that the victim of internationally-reported death threats made them up is simply not acceptable encyclopedic content. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

He's pointing that several sources being quoted on the attack against GamerGate do happen to be ideologues, by some opinions. To a lot of outside observers, the entire conflict is highly ideological in nature, which is part of why there's so much moral smearing instead of objective discussion. Consequently, if you try to make the argument, "We can't quote known ideologues", you wind up eliminating a lot of potential sources. Trouble being that you'd have a hard time proving who's an ideologue, since any ideologue functioning as an editor believes their ideals are singular Truth. YellowSandals (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, please specify where we are quoting "known ideologues" making unsupported allegations about specific living people? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Major lead change as to eliminate a detail-heavy second para

I have been bold and have done a significant rewrite of the lead [1] - it stays to much of what was already there, but the primary reason at this point is that the old second paragraph is a lot of details on the specifics of the harassment aspect - again, not that this is not a key part of the issue, but the details of specifically who and/or what is involved at that level are best left to the body. In this manner, I was even able to eliminate Quinn's name from the lead because while she was central to all this, it's not so much her (or only her) any more, but "all those" harassed.

The structure is done to be as brief a summary of the core events to date, and arranged to understand (and, my attempt) and make it clear that the ethics angle is the one that is being far overshadowed by the press's opinion of the harassment as sexist/misogynist. While the harassment aspects are clearly the more predominate concept here due to sourcing, the flow of information is much easily to understand to explain the ethics side first, and then be 100% clear while that was all going on, people were being harassed and threatened, subsequently burying the ethics arguments under that. This I feel is about as unbiased we can get on the lead while still acknowledging the fact that the press has not seen the GG side favorable due to the harassment.

I've tried to keep all the critical sourcing in this from the lead (there's only one I'm seeing when I previewed it that doesn't come up). --MASEM (t) 15:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's an improvement over what was there previously in terms of neutrality, but it should include mention that the accusations in question were originally made in blog post by ex-boyfriend. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

We have to be careful there. His blog post didn't allege she did anything for positive coverage, his blog post was just used by others to allege that. Strongjam (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Strongjam has the right idea. The problem with the previous lede's second paragraph is that one you started identifying all the major harassment victims, you have to keep adding, and while that's fine in the body, it's not for the lede. Here, by glossing over the origin of the accusation, we don't have to get into far too much detail on the exact nature of the claim. A lot of complaints - beyond the bias issues - has been "what is GG?" and by focusing on the major points and not the details, we can answer that better. (I hope :) --MASEM (t) 16:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Point taken regarding blog post not specifically making the allegations, but to my understanding, the blog post was the trigger of this, or at least a major trigger, so it seems it should be mentioned in the lead.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, if blog post mention is added, the lead might end up too long if it is adequately explained, so I can see your point for omitting specific mention of it. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a good re-write Maseum, thank you! If I can suggest, though, regarding the sentence: "These threats drew intentional media attention to the situation, who broadly condemned the Gamergate movement as one driven by sexism and misogyny based on the pattern of harassment, and calling out the drive for journalistic ethics reform as a front for a prolonged harassment campaign.."

Maybe change that to "These threats drew international media attention, with media outlets condemning Gamergate as a harassment campaign motivated by sexism and misogyny. Numerous publications have dismissed Gamergate's purported stance on journalistic integrity, assessing the stance as a front to deflect scrutiny of the harassment."

I think that's a little clearer and establishes the expressed motive behind what the journals are doing. The biggest issue, I think, was using the phrase "calling out", because that implies they're intentionally trying to bait a fight from Gamer Gate. YellowSandals (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You do not reduce the harassment that has been the major covered point to half a sentence and then bloat the rest with the content that all the major sources for weeks have labeled "ostensible" at best. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. Do you understand the purpose of the lead? It is supposed to summarize the content of the article. The enter second paragraph reiterates in far too much detail what is covered in about 7 paraphraphs of the article, delegating the other 30-odd paragraphs to the smaller 1st and 3rd para. So you have the balance all wrong. Further, as soon as you start going into details like that, if there ccontinues to be further harassment against other major figures, we're going to have to include them. In my rewrite, about 40% of the article is reflected in one paragarph, another 30% in another, and the rest between the other two. That's the absolutely correct balance for the lead, irregardless of the weight in the sources. It is also clearly less bias and much more clear what Gamergate is. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll give it this - it does at least try to avoid WP:BLP issues by taking some token steps towards splitting the false allegations against Quinn from the other GamerGate claims. Still gives too much weight to said claims and not enough to the harrassment though, and doesn't fix the length problem. Artw (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

For a lead, how much more can you say about the harassment out side of 1) summarizing the general events and suspected parties and 2) that the media broadly condemned it and accused the GG side of using ethics as a front to continue it? To insert more would require to dive into specific details, naming those harassed; naming names in this situation isn't a BLP problem, but as soon as you name one or two you have to name the rest, and that is what is weighing down the previous version. In other words, to keep the lede tight and concise, we have to gloss over some details. And to wit, the only fresh aspect of the proGG side that I added that was not already in the prior version was the GG moderates policing the harassers; everything else that could be taken as proGG already existed in some form or another. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I can see some merits to that approach, but per WP:WEIGHT would involve cutting down on what you call the "pro-GG" material, not expanding it. Artw (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

To explain the basic concept of Gamergate to a fresh reader that is trying to understand what it is, you have to go into more of established details of the proGG; mind you, I would also argue that in my change, we should add some of the specific impacts that the harassment has caused (devs leaving homes, leaving the industry, IGDA/FBI collaboration, etc.) since that's a significant broad facet of why the press has condemned the movement. But consider that the version I had, if you consider the proGG "favoring" statements, are : 1) they want to seek ethic changes, 2) some sites have responded to this 3) the ad pulls from ODNod, and 4) self-policing. That's not a lot and actually a fair summary of the most we really can talk about them. Most of the rest are all the antiGG statements, so the balance in the story is still in the predominance of antiGG sourcing. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It remains an inordinate amount of detail on the fluffy and dubious "ethics" material, compared with the harassment campaign that makes GakerGate notable. Also is say the self policing thing absolutely does not qualify for the lede, and barely qualifies for the article. Artw (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was a good re-write before the swift, unilateral reversion. It was more neutral and would have been a lot easier to work with going forward. But oh my, we can't downplay the stuff that vindicates the ideology of certain editors. The controversy's actual impact on the world? Fringe. Should be omitted. Proof that society is misogynist and needs heroes to save it? Oh, yes, very objective. Keep that at all costs. In fact, make it the whole article. Honestly, though. This is insane. For a brief period, the article had an easy to understand lead that contained everything you'd need to know about the subject, and all that lead required was a bit of readability cleaning and maybe some minor wording tweaks. Now we're back to this convoluted thing that nobody outside the debate finds valuable. And why? Just to play up the misogyny angle as much as possible when it's already extensively elaborated on within the body of the article? YellowSandals (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

In an environment where people will act for their ideology, aggressively in the assumption of their moral righteousness, civility is flattened to the earth by indignation. Look at what you're doing. For goodness sake. You're doing your best to draw clear divisions of good and evil, and you are bullying this article into submission with that mindset. You didn't like that lead because it didn't emphasize the evil you see of GamerGate? Well, for an unbiased article, isn't that point? Wikipedia doesn't decide who's evil and they don't make a point to convey that information to the readers. How do you intend to write a neutral article if your primary objective is to always emphasize the evil of the subject? YellowSandals (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

We get a "neutral" article by following the sources. And since the sources OVERWHELMINGLY cover gamergate in relation to the "evil", that's what our article will do too when it is "neutral". The continual whinging "but ethics!!!!" needs to be dropped until gamergaters find more "ethical" reporting like those at clickhole who actually see the "but ethics" as anything other other than a smokescreen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Please review all articles on WP about universally "evil" people/groups and tell me that they follow the overwhelming majority of sources that mark these as "evil" (Hint: they don't). This is why we have to be aware of WP:BIAS - we cannot treat the GG side as guilty before proven innocent, that is an impossible stance for WP to take. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

gamergate HAS been "proven guilty" - the only thing they are notable for is being related to viscous violent online trolling of women, as is well reported in all the mainstream media coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Only in the eyes of the press, not by any scientific evidence or a court of law or something else that is unequivocally firm evidence. That's the problem - we cannot take this attitude of the press, that's what BIAS is for. --MASEM (t)

you mean only in the eyes of the reliable sources, which is only what matters. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The claim that it is fact that GG is misogynyistic is not verifyable; just because nearly all the press have labeled it as such does not make it true. It is true that this is their opinion, but without any factual study that looks directly at the persons behind GG to determine their personality and motivations to be able to properly assess if the majority of GG is misogynistic or not, these remain claims based on observing patterns and the higher level of social media. Note that I'm not saying that this can be a wrong opinion, but there's absolutely no data to back it up, and until that happens, or something like a legal decision comes down on GG to say that it is misogynistic, we absolutely cannot speak in the Wikipedia voice that GG is misogynistic, only that the press condemns the movement believing it to be misogynistic. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You apparently need to leave this page and go get WP:V and WP:OR changed. This page is not exempt from basic policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

What actual part of the policies are you referring to? Please quote. Halfhat (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You know, that part of the policies that says we base our content on what the reliable published sources say, not on our own bizarre claim that only when a court has convicted someone of misogyny are we allowed to state that there is misogyny. Our court, the reliable sources has in made and dispersed its judgment and the verdict is in. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no violations of V or OR, as long as we exactly what is there: the mainstream press believes GG is about misogyny. It is OR to say that, in a Wikipedia voice as a fact, that GG is about misogyny, which is what you and many other editors are trying to do. --MASEM (t) 01:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

such accusations require actual evidence. or strike them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not accusations. It's how we have to use sources. The press are expressing their opinion that the movement is misogynistic, not the factual evidence that it is. We work on "innocent until proven guilty". --MASEM (t) 04:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If editors have, as you say, made or advocated for edits that "say that, in a Wikipedia voice as a fact, that GG is about misogyny," then please point to those changes. Be specific. Use diffs. Otherwise, you're not discussing the content, but the contributors. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

At the present time, there is no specific edit I can pinpoint, but it's not the content (directly),it is the attitude that is being carried in this thread, and in the ArbCom responses that show several editors want to paint the proGG side as factually misogynistic when there is no evidence that it is. --MASEM (t) 05:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: if at the present time you do not have diffs to back up "which is what you and many other editors are trying to do" it would behoove you to strike the comment or apologize. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, one clear example is your comment above in this thread at 20:30, 29 October 2014. gamergate HAS been "proven guilty" - the only thing they are notable for is being related to viscous violent online trolling of women, as is well reported in all the mainstream media coverage.. That's pre-assigning guilt that we don't do for any other group that is considered evil or bad or whatever; we give them the neutral benefit of the doubt before delving into the harsh criticisms that the media gives it. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that you know as well as I know that gamergate HAS been proven guilty of misogyny by the mainstream sources - do we need to play them out again? The Guardian: The recent uproar – said to be over ethics in journalism but focused mostly on targeting outspoken women who aren’t journalists at all – is just the last, desperate gasp of misogynists facing an unwelcoming future." , The Telegraph "#GamerGate: the misogynist movement blighting the video games industry" , The IB Times Any lingering doubt over whether the Gamergate movement is dedicated to anything other than misogyny and intimidation was eliminated early Thursday when Felicia Day’s personal information was dumped online., Time: Misogynist Online Abuse Is Everyone’s Problem — Men Included , Huff Po: They are facing, as activist Melissa McEwan put it, terrorist misogyny." , Vox Angry misogyny is now the primary face of #GamerGate, The LA Times: "It's time to silence 'gamergate,' end the misogyny in gaming culture" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry, but you've lost the plot. You're making a category error--we're not addressing claims of a scientific nature or claims regarding the law. We're writing an encyclopedia article about a harassment campaign. It's absolutely absurd to demand that statements about this subject be subjected to this arbitrary (and novel) threshold you're proposing. Protonk (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

We're writing an encyclopedia article about a harassment campaign. That is an immediately biased statement that we absolutely should not be taking at all if we are to remain absolutely neutral in the event. We are writing an article about a conflict on the internet from gamers questioning the ethics of journalism sites that includes the unfortunate element of a subset of the users engaging in a harassment campaign that has impacted the lives of several female developers and has been far and wide condemned by the mainstream media and has tainted the message that the bulk of the other users are trying to get across. That is the most neutral statement that is true to the sources. As soon as you start with "GG is a harassment campaign", you are directly attacking ~10,000 users that likely have not had any part, and in fact might condemn the harassment themselves. You are creating a degrading stereotype that WP does not speak with at any point. We (presently) cannot present proGG in any type of net positive light, but there is absolutely zero allowance to treat the entire effort negatively when there are reliable sources that are trying to give the proGG side a voice (eg the recent Slate article on GG Moderate). --MASEM (t) 05:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"That is an immediately biased statement that we absolutely should not be taking at all if we are to remain absolutely neutral in the event" OH COME OFF IT. You know as well as I do that the goal is to have neutral articles, not to search fruitlessly for neutral editors. I can't even process the remainder of this. I'm sorry to hear that 10,000 people are so guileless as to believe that GG is "really about ethics in games journalism", because they're carrying water for a harassment campaign. And your "neutral summary" is basically the public 'gater party line, so I'll pass on that, thanks. Protonk (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Also "You're making a category error--we're not addressing claims of a scientific nature or claims regarding the law. We're writing an encyclopedia article about a INSERT WHATEVER. It's absolutely absurd to demand that statements about this subject be subjected to this arbitrary (and novel) threshold you're proposing." It doesn't matter what's in the blank. The problem with your threshold for sourcing remains. Protonk (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking for neutral editors, I'm asking for editors if they are going to contributor to a clinically neutral discussion of Gamergate for Wikipedia, to edit in a neutral manner; to leave behind any bias they may have on their own when they make their edits. If you can't do that, and let personal feelings affect how you approach this, you should not be editing. I would quantify myself as slightly antiGG (some of what the GGs have asked for from the media seems questionable, and of course, the fact it took this long to organize to start speaking in a unified voice against the harassment stuff), but when I am looking to edit this, I am looking to treat all sides fairly, just as we do any other "hated" group or person on WP. We'll identify the strong criticism and condemnation of the group, but we do not start these articles with the a priori that they are "bad", even if all the primary sourcing out there does that. This also applies to proGG-sided editors, that they need to understand we cannot create a positive image for their group with the limited sourcing, or call out the press as conspiratorial, so that side, if they want to contribute, also must edit with a neutral tone, or otherwise should avoid editing. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

When I say GG is a harassment campaign it's personal feelings, but when you give me the GG party line it's the most neutral statement that's true to the sources. Got it. Protonk (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not giving you the party line. I'm saying what is a neutral statement based on the media: it is a movement that claims to be about ethics in journalism but marred by the use of harassment/intimidation tactics by a vocal minority that the press has condemned as misogynistic. That's not the proGG party line which would like absoltely nothing about harassment/misogyny to be part of it. Nor is it the antiGG party line that it is a misogynistic harassment campaign. It neutrally splits the difference, and that's how every editor should be thinking when editing this. --MASEM (t) 05:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem and YellowSandals refer to the Tone of the article, not the message. There is a big difference. As Masem says, articles on WP about universally "evil" people/groups have a neutral tone that is entirely unrelated to whether the sources regard them as "evil". If a (reliable) source writes that GamerGate is evil, we can cite that source and include that GamerGate is regarded as evil by such source, but we ourselves must report this in a neutral tone. And let me emphasize that. Neutral. Not in one direction ('GamerGate' is evil), nor in another direction ('GamerGate' is good). We must write with an impassionate tone. Omegastar (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the same concern I've raised. NPOV most certainly applies to tone here, even if this article will inevitably be citing from mainstream media sources that lean heavily anti-GG. All this said, the tone is *much* better than the seriously biased and propagandistic tone that characterized the article several days ago. I hope that the overall quality of this article continues to improve. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF is non-productive. Attempting to elevate an essay (WP:BIAS) above policy (WP:UNDUE) is likewise non-productive. aprock (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That really depends - OTHERSTUFF primarily refers to invoking "other crap exists" to justify a crappy article or crappy edit. That is indeed non-productive. However, pointing to good articles that manage to deal with controversial topics in a professional, dispassionate, and as far as possible, unbiased manner serve as positive examples of best practices that are indeed worth invoking. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If we can consider the revision piecemeal, IMO the most useful aspect was that it defined which is the "Gamergate" group and (at least implicitly) which is the "anti-Gamergate" group. The current version of the introduction mentions that supporters have targeted advertisers and that there is harassment related to the hashtag. The "sides", however, are not defined. There is no mention whether, for example, Ms Sarkeesian is being harassed because she is pro- or because she is anti-. I realize that these things can be gleaned from further down in the body, but it seems like this sort of general definition of terms should happen early. If we're using Gamergate to mean the event of the controversy rather than a particular advocacy, then the "Gamergate supporters and opponents" language later isn't consistent with that. TuxedoMonkey (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

A false dichotomy. There are lots of anonymous, pseudonymous, astroturfed social media accounts using "gamergate" each in their own way to grind their own axe. You cannot have "pro" and "anti" when everyone is using the term in their own way and their is no formal organization to issue a platform and the gamergaters apparently like that because there is also no culpability when viscous vocal elements go on harassment campaigns. The media has looked at the vague and contradictory "other sides" and found them to be either false or facile or not worthy of mention in comparison to the harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You are very right that there are more than two sides to this, so I don't think we should necessarily start tagging people with one or the other label. Let me just refer directly to Masem's version: "...with those supporting better disclosure of potential conflicts of interest rallying behind the Gamergate name." It gets a reader the sense that "Gamergate people are harassing Ms Sarkeesian" and not "Ms Sarkeesian is being harassed because she supports Gamergate" when they get to that portion. Presumably it was reverted because it states Gamergate's motivations to be about ethics. Maybe "...allegations about journalistic ethics were made under the Gamergate name and continued to clash with acts of harassment and misogyny." Alternately, I would be less excited about "Some Internet users, particularly on 4chan and Reddit, rallied under the Gamergate name and attacked Quinn" because it makes a strong implication that the tag showed up a couple weeks earlier than it did. TuxedoMonkey (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to support Masem in his attempt at brevity. I am coming out of wikislumber because the quality of this article is quite poor and it is obvious to any casual observer that very little attention to structure is being paid (not to mention the absurdity of semi'ing a talk page). Setting aside any accusations of bias, why is the lead nearly two pages long on a wide screen monitor and why does it warrant 3 enormous paragraphs? For what purpose do you include 28 citations in what is supposed to be an introduction? Why are you stating and restating quotes in excessive redundancy? Does anyone even understand proper composition of informative prose? I refuse to search 10+ pages of archive to see what insane rationale there is for this kind of nonsense. I came here to understand the controversy, but I could barely make it through half the article before giving up. I applaud Masem for a good start in a contentious battleground—and quite frankly I left Wikipedia because trying to get involved in similar article ownership issues left a bitter taste in my mouth—but this article needs much, much more: more brevity, more clinically neutral language, and more attention to proper structure and flow.--Dragon695 (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the constant intrusion of users trying to push a POV and demand that all of the various statements in the lead are contentious because they are not cited has led to the introduction being so long, exact, and cited. While it could be cut down, attempts to do so have been accused of favoring one side or the other, so everything must be covered as much as possible. I think.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a recipe for a mess of an article. At least admit we're left with a shit sandwich, rather than pretending that citation bombing the lede and making it 67 pages long is a good outcome. Protonk (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

1) Ryulong, you're in no position to point the finger at other users for POV pushing, and I think you know this. Referring to other users as "intrusion" implies article ownership, something that you've been called on before. If this article is to be edited productively to something resembling consensus, you need to stand down with that kind of rhetoric.

2) To my way of thinking, there is no need for an overly long lede, just one without inflammatory and biased language. That's something that can be quite succinct. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason the intro is so long is because Gamergate is an ongoing event with an ongoing impact on a number of places. It's currently wreaking financial destruction on a few periodicals, and the Colbert Report just brought Anita Sarkeesian on prime television to talk about her stance in the pleasant, satirical fashion Colbert is known for. Most logically, the lead would read as a brief summary of chronological events and the body of the article would expand on each event based on the weight of reporting on them. However, instead, many editors seem to view the Gamergate controversy as a battle of good versus evil and are doing their best to present it as such to Wikipedia's readers. Consequently, every time a new or old account drops in to ask about the bias or request some changes in tone or structure, they get the response, "No, we can't make a change. All the sources report this as a moral crusade and so must we."

This leads editors to ask for proof that all the sources are reporting on Gamergate as a moral crusade against misogyny, which in turn causes the lead to be filled with citations and quotes. This makes the lead messy and hard to work with because it's not clinical and the tone is one of moral indignation. YellowSandals (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Or in in short, the reason the lead is so messy is because too many editors are trying to use it as a preamble to justify a moral crusade, and as the controversy changes and new developments occur, so too must the rhetoric adapt. YellowSandals (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

In short, GamerGate *is* a moral crusade against women in gaming, and reliable sources describe it as such. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

well, "moral" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a fair warning

It has been brought to my attention that a couple of posts have been made in a subreddit that this article should be "Sea Lion-ed" with a group of people making incessant arguments to try to get some of the other editors here to lose their cool and get topic banned, so they can try to slant the article in their favor. (note: I am not going to mention which way, or which subreddit, because I want folks to focus on making productive suggestions of changes to the article, not the usual Player v Player blarney that things devolve into sometimes). If you're new to Wikipedia, great, hope you enjoy it, and hope you stick around. If you're only here to make this article all about the BIG TRUTHS of GamerGate (pro or con.. what we generally call a Single Purpose Account.. please realize that you'll A) Likely be hit with discretionary sanctions for disrupting discussion, and B) The natural reaction to someone incessantly arguing and barraging is to dig their heels in MORE and resist changes. SirFozzie (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Halfhat (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if we are going to be able to tell when it's started. Artw (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably when Anita goes on Colbert.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I would also hope that there is not a whole lot of jumping to conclusions and false accusations of being an SPA, something that has taken place earlier. Age of accounts, number of edits, etc can be easily checked of course, and I do hope that this will be done before any user is labeled an SPA. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"Long standing"

@Diego Moya: This is getting tiresome. Every single time someone changes the adjective describing the "issues of sexism and misogyny" phrase in the lead paragraph it suddenly becomes under contention. It keeps getting changed back and forth from being an exact quote from any number of the citations immediately at the end of that sentence. It was previously "long-documented" until Kaldari changed it from an exact quote. Before that it was some other word or phrase that had the same intent and meaning. This is so incredibly ridiculous at this point. Stop contesting every single new word that is put in that sentence. "Long-documented", "intractible", etc. This is unnecessary pedantry and you all know it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I mean it's barely been a day since you last complained about this word.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

And I will complain every time it's changed to a wording not directly supported by reliable sources, as it is now. I did not contest "long-documented" as that one was supported by the reference, but someone has decided to change it back again to the unacceptable "long-standing" which is still unverifiable. The burden is on you to provide adequate references; if you don't have them, I will remove it again. Diego (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

They mean the exact same thing. We do not have to have it as an exact quote every single time. Ingrained, long-documented, intractible, long-standing. There's just never anything that satisfies everyone on both sides of this, particularly when an editor who had not been involved in any of the disputes here prior to the RFC or the AN threads changed it on his own volition.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Diego Moya, this is childish.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a pretty clear candidate for Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Diego, are you really going to go WP:POINT with this argument that "long-standing" isn't a neutral and appropriate paraphrase of "long-documented"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The content is challenged. The burden is on you to provide a direct reference. If you don't like "long-documented", find another wording directly supported by the sources. Diego (talk)

At least three editors (myself, Ryulong and Kaldari) agree that "long-standing" is an appropriate and neutral paraphrase of the source's "long-documented" wording. Launch an RFC if you disagree, Diego. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

North, maybe you could elaborate on how sticking to what the source says, 'long-documented' could be controversial or cause contention, when it's what the source stated verbatim? Tutelary (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Just so long as you don't argue that there's too many quotes opposing GamerGate, when you refuse to let quotes be replaced by paraphrases. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh, how's that to deal with the issue of the lead being 'long standing' or 'long documented'? I'm not really sure what quotes have to do in this discussion, honestly. Tutelary (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There was some intense controversy -now at the archives- against using "long standing", as it implies that the issues have existed for a long time, but nobody could provide references supporting how long in the past was that meant to be; not to say that the words themselves have not been used by any reliable source and they haven't meet WP:BURDEN. The wording "long documented" only means that there's a wide array of documents, but has no such implication of being extended to the past.

BTW, NorthBySouthBaranof is reverting so fast that a minor edit of mine that was intended to correct an extraneous reference that I inserted from my mobile phone was turned into a full revert of his change. It likely doesn't pose a big problem, as seemly no one is enforcing the WP:3RR rule around here (at least not for certain editors), but it certainly entails an unpleasant experience, not being able to correct a minor error even for a few seconds after making it. Diego (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If we wish to stick to the precise wording of the source, then we must be sure that decontextualising a single word does not distort the meaning of the wider context. The full quote, with long-documented in context is:

In truth, the harassment has been going on much longer than that. For Quinn and many women who do what she does, threats and sexual innuendo are par for the course. Sexism in gaming is a long-documented, much-debated but seemingly intractable problem. _{(my bolding, for emphasis)}

The full quote says a lot more than just long-documented. In fact it goes much further than even long-standing, which does not capture the normality of the behaviour expressed by par for the course, nor the issue of its intractability. Personally, I would go with inveterate if we must condense the meaning to single word or phrase. But whatever is selected, long-documented misrepresents the clear meaning of the source as a whole. CIreland (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is that it doesn't say how long is "much longer"; there was no consensus in the previous talk if that was two years or twenty, as all the references provided used subjective measures, and there was no clear criteria for what episodes implied sexism and mysoginy. As such, my feeling is that any attempt to introduce a qualifier to the "issues of sexism and mysoginy" is WP:UNDUE weight if it implies describing something that the references themselves couldn't properly define; though I would not oppose "inveterate" if it is directly supported by some reference, as it seems vague enough to capture the vagueness of the sources, without implying any particular time frame. Diego (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Inveterate works for me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the full quote, CIreland. It seems to me "long-standing" did an admirable job encapsulating the meaning of the passage as a whole. You can change it to "inveterate", or "ingrained", but neither word is really better or easier to understand than "long-standing". Andreas JN466 22:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Or we can helpfully quote Marc Ambinder, a well-respected non-games journalist, who wrote of "deep-rooted anti-feminist sentiment" in the gaming community. [2] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw that. [3] That works well, actually; kudos. Andreas JN466 22:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind - at least when I was pushing for some type of language, it was meant to be applied to the entire industry, pointing to the fact that the industry has fostered sexism/misogyny (unintentionally) and that is in part what is influencing this event. It was not meant to be term to apply strictly to the gamer crowd - not that it might have been long-standing with them, but it was more difficult to demonstrate this compared to the industry. --MASEM (t) 04:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Motherboard

GamerGate has allegedly expanded into massive copyright violations. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/dear-gamergate-please-stop-stealing-our-shit?trk_source=popular kencf0618 (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If we do decide to write about this, we'll have to be very careful, they're accusing a crime but they haven't been found guilty in a court of law. Halfhat (talk) 09:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

From one standpoint, this is no difference between archive.today and sites like scribd; both are potential copyvios. I'd rather see a bit more coverage to make this a key accusation (and more about the issue of ad bypassing) from other sources. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"But ethics" apparently doesn't cover copyright. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

In this case, it's something of a gray area, where copyright is concerned. In 2011, a Federal Judge ruled that reposting an entire article without permission, still falls under the "Fair Use" clause, and isn't copyright infringement. In that specific case, Wired was sued after one of their writers copied an editorial verbatim, and posted it to the site. http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/reposting-aggregation-fair-use_b38173 Kitsunedawn (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not Reddit where you discuss the link posted. Read WP:NOTFORUM. This is a discussion thread regarding the utility of the information in the link in improving the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Digitimes

Digitimes has been discussed several times and I would like to bring it up again, because they released a new article today.

Commentary: Time is running out for console makers to clean up GamerGate (9. September)

Commentary: Calculating the cost of GamerGate, many losers, 2 potential big winners (30. October)

Racuce (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Digitimes is one of a handful of outlets that are doing any decent coverage of the matter. Good for them. I notice also another mention of "moral panic". That's been referred to in several articles, which I've compiled somewhere in one of the archives. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It also further adds to the Criticism of the Press/Media articles, which I've, again, neatly collected in one of the recent-er archives. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The first article is from September, and thus a rather out-of-date take on the subject. The 2nd one acknowledges the minority status of the "pro-GG" side, i.e. "The overwhelming negative perception being presented by the media of GamerGate has caused any potentially legitimate claims being made by its supporters to be largely ignored, and any attempt to present their evidence to be dismissed outright". Tarc (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Section for "Impact on the industry"

I think there's a possibly for a section on the "Impact on the industry" that is not directly tied to specific actions but on the controversy overall (eg beyond things like web sites changing policies to address the ethics issues). There's two I'm pretty sure we can source without too much difficultly: the fear that women will leave the industry and/or will not attract more females in the future for fear of the environment, and that there is concern that the gains of "video game as an art form" will be lost due to the challenge of "what is a game". Can anyone think of any other more esoteric results that we can source? --MASEM (t) 14:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Another possible effect is the negative impression of gamers and the gaming industry as a whole, though I would want to find more sources than just this piece. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Just dropping refs here for later for use here. effects at MIT. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Games-as-art debate reopened --MASEM (t) 14:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Leaked Emails Details

Jayen466, I might be missing something. I clicked through on the Forbes article ("the full exchange of emails" link) to what looked like Milo's personal blog with 2 links to Breitbart articles. I read through both, but for some reason I'm not seeing the email mentioned in the Forbes article that you elaborated on. The one referenced in this quote, "In one, writer Ryan Smith asks questions about where other writers and publications draw the line on writing about the private lives of subjects. He is quickly shouted down." Do you mind pointing me to where the original is? Kaciemonster (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's this one. If not, this one. Ctrl+F "smith" or "ryan". Willhesucceed (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh! Thank you. That's what I was missing. I read through the first email from "Kyle" and at the bottom saw "Click here to reply" and thought it was the comments section. Whoops. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

My concern has been addressed by this re-write. But just so you understand where I was coming from: the e-mail by Ryan Smith that the Forbes article mentions read as follows:

• Wow, this whole thing makes me feel very old. Lordy. So, I definitely don’t think anyone’s sex life should be news and I certainly wouldn’t write about it on a site. But quick question: how did some of you decide to publish the Josh Mattingly story from earlier this year: that appeared to be based on a private conversation about sex. Where do you see the line being drawn? And how do you guys feel about the Snapchat CEO’s emails from college being a story? I was also wondering if when some of you published stories about Zoe Quinn’s harassment — did you actually ask for evidence of said harassment or just go by what she wrote on Twitter.

Smith expanded in a subsequent e-mail:

• I’m just asking where the line is drawn at publishing messages that were private that have become public because someone posted them on the web. Josh Mattingly’s sexual harassment of the game dev (which is super terrible) doesn’t appear to be part of an interview, it appears to be informal chat made public. The Snapchat CEO’s emails became a big story not too long ago, and it was because private emails were made public. There’s also the case of Anthony Weiner’s sexually explicit messages. Surely it’s not all black and white when it comes to these stories.

In each of these cases, Smith was talking about inappropriate messages from men (each of them subsequently apologised) that were originally private, but then became the topic of news articles. Andreas JN466 18:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

We really should not be linking to Milo's website.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"Vocal minority"

Please provide a source for this statement: "It prompted increased attention to "deep-rooted anti-feminist sentiment" and issues of sexism and misogyny from what is believed to be a vocal minority of the gaming community." Relevant portion bolded. I see no source for the contention that the issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community which received increased attention due to gamergate's ongoing harrassment campaign comes from a 'vocal minority.' In fact, quite the opposite. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You're misreading the phrasing, as it is what portion of the gaming community is being accused of sexism and misogyny, not that those accusing the community are a vocal minority. Per [4] "Both mainstream gaming critics and many Gamergate supporters insist the brutal trolls are just a small, vocal minority." --MASEM (t) 16:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not misreading anything. That reference says that the 'brutal trolls' are a vocal minority. It does not say that sexism and misogyny in the gaming community are coming from a vocal minority, and in fact the source continues "that said, discomfort about women’s growing presence in culture and industry remains widespread IRL." You are using this source to claim that the 'issues of sexism and misogyny' which have gotten increased attention due to gamergate are coming from a 'vocal minority.' "Brutal trolling" is not the only source of sexism and misogyny that has been noted in our many references for this issue. this edit has the effect of minimizing what has been well-sourced as a "widespread," "ingrained," and "long-documented" problem. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that's a fair concern, as the source is more towards the harassment, and I'll take TDA's assurance that "Segment of" (Which had been removed earlier) can be sourced on the broader issue. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You do understand why we have to keep "segments" in there, right? Otherwise, we are calling every gamer as sexist and misogynistic, which is neither true nor morally correct. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Er. If you say "community has generalised_attribute_X", you're not saying "every person in community has generalised_attribute_X", you're saying that it's a pervasive trait of the community. There's a lot of background and thought around precisely this issue. Ironholds (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason we're being pushed with SPAs and the like is that language like this, while technically correct per this logic, is accusational on top of an article that will never be able to be written favorably towards one side with the given sourcing. Assuming that TDA's statement on readding "segment", that it is believed from RS that only a segment of the community is considered sexist and misogynistic, we should include those words to simply defuse of part the rhetoric here. Obviously, if that can't be said, then we can't use "segment" but there are ways to revisit that sentence that make the same statement about the broad nature of sexism and misogyny in the community without making it appear as an attribute applying to the whole community. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No, the reason we're being 'pushed with SPAs' is because gamergate is there are off-site groups trying to use us to improve gamergate's public image. We need to go by the sources, and we can't bend those rules because you think it will mollify the SPAs. Even if there is a single source that claims that sexism and misogyny in the gaming community - not just harassment, but the broader issues which gamergate has brought to wider attention - is coming from only a 'segment,' that is not going to outweigh all of the sources that say that the isseus are widespread. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

We can say the same information with less vitriol and accusational tone without changing the fact that proGG does not have a good public image. That's wording choices. That's not any divergence from policy, and in fact adheres more to it when considering NPOV. --MASEM (t) 17:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not how I would read it. Ironholds has the right idea. Maybe if we changed it from 'of the gaming community' to 'in the gaming community' people would stop reading it as a blanket assertion? Strongjam (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That'd work for me, although a big bit of my brain wants to just leave it be; I'm probably not qualified to make or help make decisions on things like this, though. Alternate idea: we could rephrase as "the common problem of sexism and misogyny within the gamming community", which might help avoid ambiguity, but I'm not wedded to that. I don't think it's our job to educate readers as to the difference between "being black and white is pervasive within bovine communities" and "every cow that ever lived and ever will live is black and white" in-text. It'd be a note, at best. Ironholds (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure what phrasing you're suggesting. "issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community?" -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Exactly what you changed it to. I had a typo in my comment originally that confused things. Strongjam (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You could say, "It prompted increased discussion of "deep-rooted anti-feminist sentiment" as well as discussion of sexism and misogyny." You know, to illustrate that Wikipedia doesn't implicate any particular individuals or groups or stand with any side. We could just say what's happening. So much easier than trying to counter-balance a weighted statement against itself. YellowSandals (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

We could except that's not how neutrality works. Neutrality is "represent the split of the sources fairly", not "represent all sides equally, regardless of the split in the sources". It's been very well documented that both implicit and explicit misogyny and gender bias is rampant in the gaming community: fuzzing it by suggesting it's just a generalised discussion of sexism and misogyny as concepts would not be "what's happening", it would be abstracting away from what's happening. Ironholds (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I know. Stupid of me, right? We're all sinners in the hands of a angry god and it's undue weight to suggest otherwise. Else we'd live in utopia. However, maybe the article's tone might be more neutral if we didn't spend so much time flabbergasting over how to delicately accuse Gamergate of misogyny, and instead took the easy route and establish that "THESE NUMEROUS PERIODICALS SAY IT'S MISOGYNY" and have it be factual and non-controversial. YellowSandals (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That would be a very long list. Kaldari (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes. But we are clever apes. Some of us make good with the English. We could potential say something like, "A vast preponderance of reporting agencies have decried Gamergate as misogynist." You know - that sort of thing. Some way to represent big much numbers without actually pointing to each individual member of a broad set. YellowSandals (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that Wikipedia is entirely built on statements of fact and opinion by third-parties, this already happens: it's how citations work. The alternative would be replacing every assertion in every article with, explicitly, inline, "according to X...". We don't do that, because we like to, as you put it, "make good with the English". Ironholds (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

A crazy idea is we could just conform to WP:UNDUE and cut out all the weasel words. Artw (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a key step, but there's more than just avoiding weasel words , it's just being aware that turns of certain phrasing, while might be prevalent in sources, can be seen as a tone problem and an equivalent wording that loses none of the context from the sources can be used. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course. But I feel - and follow with me because I think this is key - some people don't like being called misogynists, and somewhere in the Gamergate Controversy, there might actually be a controversy. OH! Potentially related: I notice a lot of publications make fun of Sarah Palin's intelligence, but in the lead of her article, Wikipedia doesn't insult her intelligence. Is that weird? Should I hop over and edit Sarah Palin's article? YellowSandals (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no need for sarcasm. Could you expand on the "there might actually be a controversy" portion of your comment? And, to address your specific example; yes, this is true. However, you're comparing a specific living person parodied as being stupid to a loose community of people factually asserted as containing inherent misogyny. There's a big difference between commenting on a person and commenting on the general ethos of a very fuzzy group, and there's a very big difference between Onion op-eds and...well, as Kaldari mentions above, it's a fairly settled statement. Ironholds (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You find it completely non-contentious to call people names? YellowSandals (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I mean, be honest, if I called you a misogynist, would you feel compelled to defend yourself? Or would you agree with me if I found a bunch of journalists willing to say the same thing? I'm not sure why you expect who knows how many people to just take an insult like that lying down. It's a somewhat controversial way to write an article and certainly one that's going to bait a lot of angry responses from you insult. No? YellowSandals (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That's an adorable example. See, several journalists did call me a misogynist - and I responded by looking at my behaviour, and the behaviour of those I associated with, and growing the hell up. You may want to pick your illustrations better :). It doesn't matter if people find accurately reporting on what a myriad number of third-party sources say offensive, or insulting. Our job is not to write what will make everyone sleep well at night: it is to write the truth (or: the truth, as a reflection of verifiable information). I don't particularly mind if people take that lying down, standing up, or leaning against a window looking nonchalant. Ironholds (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec to YellowSandals' comment) Even moreso, when you read through the more recent articles that have tried to document the proGG with some sincerity, it is not that they are callng the GG movement as a whole misogynist, but that 1) there are very likely a small number of people within it that are and likely the ones responsible for the harassment, 2) this misogyny has tainted the whole of the "GG" name, and 3) while there are some in the proGG that are more moderate, the press is critical of this subset for not moving "faster" and with more seriousness to excise itself from the "GG" name as to denounce the misogynistic attacks, though appreciate they are working more on this now. So while we can call the movement as one that as a whole is tainted by misogyny (very well sourced), we should be very careful to apply that label to the members of the group as a whole as misogynistic. Hence in the above line in the lead, the language talking about "the community" and not "the section of the community" or "the movement" can be misread and saying that the entire population of GG supporters are, even considering what Ironholds said about how labels are applied. A word choice here or there can vastly improve the tone of the article.--MASEM (t) 18:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The article does need to talk about the issues. The gender politics and misogyny talk - it's all there in huge quantity. I just get tired of seeing it all represented as Truth. And I have a strong feeling as how it's become Truth in the eyes of some people, but I just refuse to believe the world is so black and white. Where morals are concerned, I don't feel like Wikipedia should be writing in blacks and whites either. YellowSandals (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for my rather sardonic tone, but this debate keeps going and it's the same debate every time. I've had one user try to ban me. Another has just recently threatened that I'll be banned if I maintain my stance. And the only reason I keep getting for why we need to use Wikipedia to insult some group of frustrated video game enthusiasts is "because they're wrong and everyone says so". At this point, a little levity seems appropriate. There's a lot of monkey stuff going on with this article.

And if you are indeed so easy to persuade with a simple moral attack, then what will you do when someone says you are a sinner and must repent? What you see as adult behavior, I see as a common social behavior present in most ideologies. Nothing specifically wrong of it, but perhaps you're interested in being part of a group, maintaining status within that group, and accepting the things that group believes. However, people who disagree with your group do exist, even if you don't communicate with them often, and they take a somewhat harsher stance towards being accused of "sin", "misogyny", or "degeneracy". YellowSandals (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

We're describing actual misogyny here, per the sources, not "name calling". Artw (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason not to attribute controversial statements like that to the source which presented them? Tutelary (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. You can see an analogue in some corporate articles. Sometimes a corporation has a PR boo-boo and we're faced with a choice to attribute coverage of the events to a source or to summarize those events in text. Sometimes it makes sense to say "the NYT alleged" or something, but in a lot of cases putting off responsibility for the claim is a bad idea, because it contrasts (sometiems obviously) with cases where we summarize an event and makes the claim appear implicitly weaker. That's the big issue. We want to strike a balance between attributing opinion or analysis where possible and not implicitly undermining the claim at hand by kicking too much of the text out to "so and so says". Protonk (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between a corporation saying or doing something to hurt themselves and having it reported as fact versus making generalized, derogatory statements about whole groups of people. If the majority of periodicals were saying that Nissan openly questioned the sanctity of cheese, then Wikipedia would say they questioned the sanctity of cheese, because the weight of articles implies they did. That's far different than if the majority of periodicals called Nissan a "company of degenerate fools". You can verify that Nissan questioned the sanctity of cheese. You can't verify that they are degenerate fools for doing so - who knows what motives they have to question cheese?

But here we are with Gamergate, with the majority of articles functionally saying the movement is composed of degenerates, and Wikipedia uses this as justification to say that Gamergate is a degenerate movement or a movement revolving around degeneracy. The articles are all saying they attacked Quinn, so we say they attacked Quinn. It's a factual thing that can be confirmed or denied. To be frank, maybe Gamergate didn't attack Quinn because the responsible party was never proven or apprehended, but we won't say that because no secondary sources corroborate this view. It would be undue weight to say that Gamergate wasn't involved in the harassment of Quinn.

But I do not call for undue weight. I call for Wikipedia to regard insults as what they are - insults. Things that cannot be proven or substantiated, and that should not be spoken in Wikipedia's voice. We'll say Quinn was harassed, but we should not say that Gamergate is a movement of degenerates or misogynists. To call them such names is to ascribe a moral judgement from which Wikipedia is meant to refrain. YellowSandals (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Huh? We follow the sources. If "the majority of articles functionally saying the movement is composed of degenerates" , that is what our article will do as well. If you dont like that, you are wasting your time arguing here on this page. You will need to go propose a change to policy, and waste your time arguing over there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You are insulting people and they are angry. I don't care how factual you think the insults are, they are still insults. Even if the entire Catholic Church decries homosexuality as wrong within its canon, that does not mean we go to the homosexuality page on Wikipedia and change it to call homosexuals a group struggling with sin and degeneracy. I don't care if an ideological group has come to consensus about another group they disagree with. It doesn't justify plastering insults on Wikipedia. YellowSandals (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

We follow the sources. Its not our issue that gamergaters decided to toss their lots in with an anarchic "movement" that began with misogynist harassment and has never moved from there. We are not their PR firm to fix their bad image. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources insult the people within that group by calling the misogynists. Wikipedia does not follow the sources so far as to repeat their insults. Do detail the harassment and attribute it to Gamergate as has been done across numerous platforms. Do NOT call any group or movement by an offensive slur popularly attributed to that movement. It's all I ask. YellowSandals (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Its not an "insult" to call a misogynist a misogynist. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Then nor is it insulting to call a sinner a sinner, and we need to amend the homosexuality article as well so the readers know who the sinners are. I'm sure there are more articles we can apply this logic to. Who else do we need to slander and destroy? It seems you are the judge and executioner here. YellowSandals (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the only appropriate response to that is "Holy hell!?!?!" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Well if Wikipedia is going to start arbitrating morality based on popular consensus, I expect you to explain how the site will manage. Your reasoning opens up a hornet's nest. YellowSandals (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

How is saying that there is "misogyny in the gaming community" insulting anyone? It's a simple statement of fact. It doesn't say that all gamers are misogynists or even a majority of them. Kaldari (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to say there's "degeneracy in the homosexual community" as part of the lead for the homosexuality page? I think not. If you're correct in your debate, imagine how many doors this would open to controversial and offensive material. There's no reason for Wikipedia to slide insults into the article as though it were factual information. Maybe there are people who hate women in the gaming community and maybe there are homosexuals who cheat on their partners. Though these accusations may be factual in the broadest sense, they are still slanderous to all within the group to which these generalizations do not apply. YellowSandals (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

As soon as you decide to focus on content and not ridiculous comparisons, you may be worth responding to in the future, but if you continue down that bizarre path you are taking, you will soon find yourself under the grips of the discretionary sanctions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the altruism but I was already brought up on the administration page for pushing WP: IMPARTIAL. I don't see what's so brazen about directing to other controversial pages that follow WP: IMPARTIAL. The homosexuality page doesn't contain offensive language just because some ideologies think it's morally reprehensible, and the Gamergate page shouldn't contain offensive language either just because there are people who find it reprehensible. YellowSandals (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(Note: we can - and should - include limited quotes that may include offensive language that represent the opinions of those critical of the GG side, as long as they are quoted + cited, and very clear that it is an opinion from that side; sometimes the degree of intensity of language can help explain how intense an opinion might be). But outside of these quotes, we need to be a lot more carefully)--MASEM (t) 01:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Right. I don't mean to push in absolutes. Sources being quoted are one thing. Implying that a whole group is steeped in moral impurity is too far, though. YellowSandals (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"Its not an "insult" to call a misogynist a misogynist." - this is correct. If A misogynist is identified, call them that. Otherwise, it's the same type of slur and stereotype applied to other minority groups. No one would propose labeling African-Americans as a long-standing culture of criminality no matter how many studies or papers treat the broad topic of crime in AA communities. Misogyny should be treated the same way here. Yes, articles that address misogyny and sexism in the gamer community are as important as articles that address crime in the African-American community. No, that doesn't mean it is okay to portray the gamer community as misogynist anymore than it is okay to portray the African-American community as criminal. Reliable sources wouldn't make that error and have no business being used in this article to justify such broad slurs. --DHeyward (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't state that the entire gamer community is misogynist. We state, accurately and impeccably sourced, that there is "deep-rooted anti-feminist sentiment" and issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community. There are, undisputedly, issues of sexism and misogyny in the gamer community. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but misogyny is not a clinically defined crime which can be objectively determined in a court of law. Unless they describe themselves as misogynist, how would you prove someone is a "woman hater"? If a news source calls somebody stupid, Wikipedia doesn't then call that person "a stupid". If a news source calls somebody a "woman hater", we don't then go on Wikipedia and say that person is grappling with a hatred of women. I've tried to tackle this before but haven't gotten a response from anyone yet: if it's a clinical term, what particular social model are you using to define misogyny? Because I don't know and neither do a lot of readers. I'm aware there are social models out there for this, but I'm also aware that none of them are 100% accurate because behavioral models are never 100% accurate.

This is why I think a lot of this debate is ideological and focused on trying to prove the existence of a very strict evil. As I compare, it's like seeing people argue a human can be objectively sinful, and if they are determined as such then we should refer to people as sinners as a matter of fact. The trouble being that, eventually, it becomes sin just to disagree with the ideology or even the assessment of sin.

There's really no objective way to call people sinners, misogynists, degenerates, or anything of the like. I understand you can take classes that will teach you recognize misogyny, just like you can take religious courses that will teach you to recognize sin. However, we don't let religious experts depict homosexuals as sinners on the homosexuality page because it's inflammatory and unnecessarily controversial. Likewise, we really don't need experts on misogyny coming to Wikipedia to establish who the misogynists are. If you believe in the objective, clinical identification of immorality, that's fine, but it belongs in a personal blog. Wikipedia is meant to be WP: IMPARTIAL, meaning it doesn't engage in these kinds of controversial, esoteric morality judgements. YellowSandals (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You keep going back to the same dry well. We follow the mainstream reliable sources. The mainstream reliable sources do not discuss homosexuality in terms of "sinners" or "degenerate". The mainstream reliable sources DO describe gamergate in terms of "Misogyny". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

A broad discussion of being WP: IMPARTIAL throughout the entire article is not WP:STICK. And no, Wikipedia does not describe any group as being possessed of immorality just because the reliable sources do. Failure to be WP: IMPARTIAL is against Wikipedia policy - it's not impartial to say a group is "concerned with moral wrongdoing" or anything of the like. It is not impartial to include smear pieces in the article, as was attempted below, to connect individuals within a group to some kind of perceived immorality. Too many editors here approach the Gamergate controversy with this non-objective belief that there is such a thing as objective morality, and there frankly isn't. There's no objective way to determine morality. It's not impartial to act as though there were.

Think of it from this perspective: a lot of the critics Gamergate is angry at happen to be saying that gamers are misogynist and hate women. If it isn't true, that's not only damaging to the image of people who play games, but it also discourages women from joining the hobby because these critics make them feel unwelcome. In that way, such negativity can actually backfire and it's actually the critics who are misogynist because they hurt women by falsely denigrating their welcome to a community.

Context is key where moral arguments are concerned. As I say, I understand if some of you may have spent thousands of dollars learning how to "objectively" determine misogyny in the same way a priest may be taught by his own education how to objectively determine sin by Church canon. However, your expertise on judging morality is not required in an impartial encyclopedia that seeks to merely describe the straightforward events surrounding a situation. Wikipedia is not here to catalog which groups are struggling with "objective' immorality in this day and age. Those judgements are to be made within platforms that do not have a strict codes of impartiality. YellowSandals (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"A broad discussion of being WP: IMPARTIAL throughout the entire article" is in fact WP:STICK when it is continually based upon your continued ignoring of basic policy that has been shown to you again and again. WP:UNDUE we cover the subject as the reliable sources cover the subject. WP:BALASPS we do NOT create or attempt to create a false "balance". We do not care if the angry horde is described in our article as an angry horde when the reliable sources describe it as an angry horde. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

WP: IMPARTIAL and WP:UNDUE are not mutually exclusive to each other. You should be able to describe the subject in a detached manner without all these loaded statements about misogyny. You keep citing WP:UNDUE like it's the holy grail protecting you from all criticsm, but it doesn't apply to my complaint no matter how many times you try to throw it at me. I'm not asking you to add more data about press ethics or to downplay the harassment. The harassment is a big deal and the press ethics haven't been discussed much in the press. I'm asking this article to stop flabbergasting over cute ways to imply Gamergate is immoral, and instead just write what blasted happened, quote the people who call it misogynist instead of speaking it in Wikipedia's voice, and get the controversial, moral relativism out of the article. YellowSandals (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's neutrality policy entails reflecting the judgments of reliable sources rather than making our own judgments - it does not entail eschewing any potentially judgmental language whatsoever. Reliable sources talk about this as an issue of misogyny among gamers. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That is not true. From the WP: IMPARTIAL section: "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."

The entire policy is relevent because, for a lot of this article, it has been ignored in entirety. Especially the last section, since it regards repeating one side of a heated debate. This policy implicitly discourages using WP:UNDUE as an excuse to speak one side's stance in Wikipedia's voice, because doing so is not impartial. Further down the policy page, there's also a discussion of "words to watch".

"Using loaded words... may make an article appear to promote one position over another."

And indeed, misogyny is a loaded word. A negatively loaded word that has been used to disparage one side of this conflict. Yet a number of editors keep acting as though its use is protected by Wikipedia policy and in fact is necessary, when it frankly is not! It's not even clear what the word means, and because the word implies a moral judgement, there's not really an objective way to use it! YellowSandals (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

And again with the false construction that there are "two sides". There are not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that all the reliable sources describe multiple sides to the controversy, I would say your view is WP:FRINGE. YellowSandals (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"Misogyny" is not a "loaded word." It is the word which specifically means "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is a bad thing! With a negative connotation! YellowSandals (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

And it has been the term used repeatedly by reliable sources to describe the situation. If people are tired of being associated with misogynists, then they can quit associating with misogynists. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's job to weaken a group by casting in a negative light. You are, however, not prohibited from saying "gaming has been accused of misogyny", because it has been. You can substantiate that. But when dealing with opinions, you need to attribute point of view, as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. It is the opinion of Times, Kotaku, Gawker, and a slew of others that Gamergate is a misogynist movement. The same policy discourages "weasel words" like "many people feel Gamergate is misogynistic" unless you can find a reliable secondary source that states this info. I do believe we have sources remarking on how many periodicals have decried Gamergate. Even if we don't, we can still maintain impartiality by ascribing point of view.

There is a clinical way to write this article, but it's not being done because there are editors who think a popular opinion makes a moral judgement become somehow factually true. But the accusation of misogyny is one side of the argument, and it is not impartial to repeat accusations of misogyny or other disparaging comments in Wikipedia's voice. We need to write the lead and other sections using WP: IMPARTIAL and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV while still remaining focused on WP:UNDUE. It is possible to combine all of these policies and use them together, but so far the policy of WP:UNDUE has been used repeatedly to justify ignoring WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP: IMPARTIAL. YellowSandals (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

We are not prohibited from using words that describe things as bad with negative connotations, if those are the words used by reliable sources. You continue to falsely claim that we describe GamerGate as "misogynistic." We do not. Rather, we describe the controversy as involving misogyny, which it undisputedly does. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate involves the discussion of misogyny. I believe, if you are paying attention, many articles explain Gamergate does not believe itself to be a movement that deals in irrationally hating women. Hence, we follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to remain WP: IMPARTIAL. You're saying things are indisputable as I actively and coherently dispute with you. I even provided a hypothetical where the claims of misogyny turn around and put the shoe on the other foot, because morality is not objective and figuring who was being immoral depends on context and intent. YellowSandals (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There is effectively no debate among reliable sources that misogyny is a significant issue within the gaming community. So yes, we can say in Wikipedia's voice that misogyny is a significant issue within the gaming community. Sources to the contrary are a fringe. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The reliable sources explicitly discuss the debate that exists, even when they disagree with Gamergate. To say there is no debate regarding a moral judgement of a group is ludicrous. A popular moral viewpoint is not a scientific consensus. This article needs to follow Wiki policy. It needs to remain WP: IMPARTIAL, and when moral judgements are made of this group, we need to attribute them, as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. We provide these same policies to the Klu Klux Klan and other controversial groups - we should apply it here. YellowSandals (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Provide multiple recent mainstream sources that say there is question about the misogyny in the gamergate movement or drop your stick. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

KotakuInAction moderators misogynist/anti-feminist/interested in female subjugation porn

A simple investigation by BuzzFeed determines that seven out of 10 KotakuInAction moderators are also moderators or frequent participants in sub-Reddits such as "struggleporn," "breakfeminazis," "ProlapseVille," "WhatFeministsLookLike" and other forums described by BuzzFeed as "devoted to either the physical and emotional degradation and humiliation of women, or in subreddits devoted to mocking and delegitimizing the arguments and appearances of feminists and 'social justice warriors'." This leads BuzzFeed to conclude that "a look at the online behavior of the moderators of KotakuInAction reveals a community largely guided by a group of people who participate in and moderate subreddits devoted to the physical degradation of women and the mockery and the ridicule of feminism" and "the online activity of its representatives undermine the subreddit’s stated premise and reveal it as a well-orchestrated front for a woman-hating goon squad."

I find Masem's alleged sourcing concerns to be a non-issue; if we're accepting Forbes contributor blogs which are not even edited, then surely an editorially-vetted news post by a BuzzFeed staff member is a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is not a reliable source per WP:RS/N, and as specific names are given, you've entered a unfounded BLP claim based on an unreliable source. And while you brought up Forbes, they are not thoroughly vetted but people like Kain have demonstrated past editorial standards on their own. That said, I'm all for removing weak RSes in this like those Forbes blogs if other sources can replace that. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

In that case, we should remove the 2 (3?) Buzzfeed articles we're using right now. Kaciemonster (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Anything on Buzzfeed in this article is from a staff member and not some random user submited contribution. Such sources should be allowed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The article suggested here is by a staff member. Kaciemonster (talk)

I am fully aware. I am arguing for inclusion. And there has been no discussion on WP:RSN saying "don't use Buzzfeed staff member posts".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be. If it's unreliable, it's not going to suddenly be reliable because there is no proof of editorial control and the vested consensus in WP:RSN that it is an unreliable source. Tutelary (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No one has ever argued that it was unreliable. If pieces exclusively by staff members have editorial oversight (there is a team of editors and such) then it meets WP:RS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Buzzfeed as a whole is considered unreliable, as they are established as a click-bait site. And as for the other Buzzfeed articles, they are not uniquely supporting any statement or quote on the article, so they can be removed without loss of proper sourcing. But back to this specific article, it is laying out accusations against named individuals simply based on a site's profile; this is a straight-up BLP violation. --MASEM (t) 19:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not. What part of BLP is violated by a reliable source describing people who moderate anti-feminist and misogynist forums as anti-feminist and misogynist? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a "clickbait" article on Buzzfeed. It's a news post from one of their staff members. It is only naming people's pseudonyms on the website. I seriously doubt that anonymous people are protected from WP:BLP.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't find any consensus discussion on RSN considering BuzzFeed an unreliable source. It has an identifiable editorial structure and is widely cited by other outlets. There is no BLP issue in republishing what Reddits someone moderates. I'm also unaware that Kain has "demonstrated past editorial standards" anywhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know of this is usable, but it certainly shouldn't surprise anybody. Artw (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

See also These Are the Creepy 4Chan Successors Behind Gamergate's Pathetic War, to a lesser extent the strip bar article and anywhere there are screen caps of the various GG/MRA boards such as We Hunted The Mammoth. Artw (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Any such implication or the like that these moderators (living people) are horrible people would be a BLP violation, straight and simple. Tutelary (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If they are not named people then how can WP:BLP protect them? It's another anonymous and nebulous group.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The article names admins; even if that's an online user name and no clear connection to their real name, that's still a BLP issue; even named "admins" (which are advertized on the KIA reddit) would be a BLP problem. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous online identities cannot possibly be protected by BLP. Not to mention that we do not explicitly list any names on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to explain what part of BLP prohibits us from discussing reliably-sourced statements of people's activities and ideologies. What part of the policy prevents us from saying "According to BuzzFeed, this person is a moderator of "struggleporn," which BuzzFeed says is misogynist? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to all living persons, notice how it says 'ALL', not 'except for anonymous online identities', living persons. If there's a living person behind that account, it's encaptured by BLP. North, it's because Buzzfeed is not a reliable source and the assertion itself falls afoul of BLP. The matter of there Buzzfeed being in the article wasn't rubber stamped by any editor except the person who added them. It probably wasn't noticed within all the edit warring, protections, edit summaries, and sheer edit volume. I'd imagine it was just overlooked. It still should be removed. Tutelary (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a news article written by a staff member of Buzzfeed, one that has to have been vetted through their editorial process. There are no arguments at any point on WP:RSN that Buzzfeed staff member pieces are not reliable. Per WP:BLP this is a reliably sourced, neutral POV adhering, not-original research addition that cites that someone went through the KotakuInAction moderation team and found that several of them were moderators of other forums that excusively denigrate women. That is all we are saying about it on Wikipedia. An anonymous group of people that we do not specifically identify are being listed in the source and it does not violate WP:BLP to present the information as NorthBySouthBaranof did.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Pointing out a loophole on how people on WP:RSN discussed something by without the qualifier 'a staff approved article' and trying to drive it by a reliable source based on that I think is not alright. They were arguing for the entire source itself, all articles and the like, and came to the conclusion that Buzzfeed is not a reliable source in nearly every context. (barring the 'personal opinion of it of course'. ) The fact that an unreliable source has written an article about a living person and trying to say that it 'X person denigrate's women' is the nature of the BLP violation here. In any case, I have another concern; What does this have to do with GamerGate? Tutelary (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Because there's a difference on Buzzfeed between everything clickbaity here and their dedicated news section. Buzzfeed is used extensively on Wikipedia as a source in articles. You do not get to contest it just because it paints the side you've taken in these matters in an unfavorable light. And there are zero discussions on WP:RSN that support your conclusions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

What it has to do with GamerGate is self-explanatory in the article; the people who moderate one of GamerGate's lead organizing forums are demonstrably linked with misogynistic sentiments and the celebration of degrading women. And please don't go "well they aren't GamerGate," because yeah, we just explained in the article that 8chan and KotakuInAction are where GamerGate organize. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, here's the deal. You've spent oodles and oodles of words on this page trying to prevent us from describing GamerGate as misogynist because "we don't have sources that say GamerGate is misogynist." Then when sources point out specifically how members of GamerGate who moderate GamerGate's organizing forums are verifiably linked with anti-feminist and misogynist sentiments and interest in the subjugation and degradation of women... you instantly try to throw out a source that has already been used in this article repeatedly without comment or objection. The disingenuity here is obvious. You just don't want anything negative said about GamerGate. That ship has sailed, "based Masem." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Calm down NorthBySouthBaranof, trying to keep a noon biased article is not biased. That you want to show the world how bad Gamergate does not give you the right to use the wikipedia-page to do it. I suggest that you take step back now:::--Torga (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ohai there Torga, I don't take orders from GamerGate socks, thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you take orders from Anti-gamergate socks, that desperately wants to make this about misogny.--Torga (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It is about misogyny. Did you miss Colbert last night? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

For one, I'm not tracking this article every waking moment, and so if the Buzzfeed articles got in while I wasn't watching, they got it; now that I'm aware they are there, I'm point out they should be removed as very weak sourcing. But you have ccompletely mistated what I'm saying. You can state that GG is percieved as misogynistic by the press, that's very clear and unavoidable, you simply cannot state "GG is misogynistic" without any other qualification because that makes in WP's voice, and we do not take sides in any type of issues like this. This article is riding that line extremely close and it needs to be brought back towards the more neutral (not balanced, just neutral) tone. Let the press and the GG supporters yell at each other. We are here to simply summarize that both sides have issues with the other, with one side having much more predominate points to make over the other. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please note we absolutely do not do "both sides" style reporting here, see WP:UNDUE. Artw (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes we do, since more than enough RS have given enough weight to the GG side (even if they disagree with them) to cover that side in a neutral manner. We will never be 50/50 on a content level, but we can neutrally cover both sides. The UNDUE argument is long since invalid given much of the sourcing that has come up over the last week, and more appearing to be coming in the future --MASEM (t) 19:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, all the sourcing that describes GamerGate as riddled with misogynistic harassment, you're right. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There is also plenty of sources that talks about the actual earnest efforts of the movement. We cannot pretend that doesn't exist because some portions of the press have opted to ignore it or consider it a false front. --MASEM (t) 19:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much all the sources say that those efforts are nothing more than a front for misogynistic harassment. I'm sorry Masem, but you just can't deny the crushing, impossible weight of reliable sources anymore. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent (like, last 2 days) sources that give at least some validation to the proGG side: Slate, BBC (including Quinn!) WAPost. Yes, there are other sources that are basically ignoring any more proGG matters (primarily those in the VG area), but you cannot argue that all the sources have. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is a very week source, Huffington Post or lower tier. Find something better. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I find that interpretation of those sources extremely questionable. Artw (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing at all wrong with using Huffington as a source, your swipe at them is meritless. As for Buzzfeed, there are several claims of "not a reliable source per WP:RSN, yet in the archives I see only a single 3 yr old thread that was hardly conclusive. Would some of the "per RSN"'ers care to elaborate? Tarc (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is like Huffington in that we don't yet have a strong history of editorial control and fact checking; Buzzfeed started about a year ago to get past its "borrowing content" approach and develop better practices, but they still are well established as a clickbait site (putting up articles that catch your eye on twitter or other sources that may not really have much content or not written with strong journalistic integrity). They are getting better in developing a history, but they are not there yet. As such, they are a weak RS that should be replaced if the source is not needed/duplicated by others (the pre-existing BF articles in here), or avoided if the details are not critical. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Those are fine opinions, but not the basis to take action unilaterally. You also claimed "per RSN" above, which does not appear to match the reality of what is found in the RSN archives. Also also, many Wikipedia articles use buzzfeed as a source, so I'm seeing very little weight behind the insistence by you and Tutelary that the material is problematic. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This also identifies a KotakuInAction moderator as the moderator of another "rape fantasy" subreddit. That seems to support the allegations put forward in Buzzfeed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm iffy on using BF myself, for the reasons Masem details right above me. I do think the instant something stronger appears (I see it's been used elsewhere on wehuntedthemammoth, but that DEFINITELY fails RS).. it should be replaced.. My thoughts would be to use that ref with the following line: "An investigation by BuzzFeed noted that several moderators of the reddit subgroup"KotakuInAction", which is one of the major gathering areas for GamerGate supporters, also either moderated or were regular participants in groups with anti-feminist or misogynistic names". Salon might be better, but I also have concerns about that as RS. It is undoubtedly Left-slanted, and should be used sparingly, as we would a right-slanted site. SirFozzie (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Being a moderator of a forum that has a attribute of X does not mean one has the attribute of X as well. That's a leap of logic we can't take. It can be observed but then Willhesucceed's point above "what does this have to do with anything?" applies. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

When it's been established that KIA is where GamerGate aggregates, then its moderators being moderators for several anti-women boards does have to do with Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

And? That's an interesting fact, but it doesn't change anything. The Buzzfeed article would like to imply this is clearly a bad thing for them to be admins there, but we can't take that step. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If moderators on boards called "breakfeminazis" or a board dedicated to Gor are behind the moderation team of the main pro-Gamergate board, then it does suggest that they hate women, or at the least are anti-feminist.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that is a leap of logic we cannot take without an reliable secondary source making the claim for us. It is comparable to the claim that GG is misogynistic because the harassment focused on women, without the addition of numerous secondary sources making that leap for us. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The source does make that leap. Two of them, actually. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the BF doesn't - it gets about as close to say "X is misogynistic because of this admin", but it actually doesn't make the claim. But let's assume they do, then the issue falls back, is this a BLP issue. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Fozzie, so now that Salon has also drawn a connection between a person who is both a moderator of Kotakuinaction and of a "rape fantasy" forum there, I think the case is clearer. As multiple sources have now connected the A-to-B dots here, I think we're on solid ground for at least some brief mention. Tarc (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I propose An investigation by BuzzFeed noted that several moderators of the reddit subgroup"KotakuInAction", which is one of the major gathering areas for GamerGate supporters, also either moderated or were regular participants in reddit subgroups with content that the site described as "devoted to the physical degradation of women and the mockery and the ridicule of feminism." BuzzFeed argued that this demonstrated the group's misogynistic roots. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we're flying into WP: BLPGOSSIP territory here. Is there any relation of these moderators to Gamergate other than their reddit is allowing discussion to take place there? --Kyohyi (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Kyohyi.. as the BuzzFeed articles state, KiA is a very public face of GG, and is noted as being one of the primary gatherings of GamerGate supporters. And Masem: It seems to me like this would be a pretty good buttress in the section "Role of misogyny and antifeminism" in the article. SirFozzie (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Kyohyi, a movement can't just keep claiming that everyone associated with it isn't part of it when it's convenient for the movement to do so. That's No true Scotsman territory. Either you're a movement or you're not, and if you're moderating one of two main forums used by that movement... yes, you're going to be linked to it. Numerous sources discuss KotakuInAction as a GamerGate organizing center.

Wikipedia, on its own, cannot make the leap that "if you're a moderator of a forum used by GamerGate to organize, you're part of GamerGate." That would be WP:SYNTH. But we are not prohibited from republishing reliably-sourced synthesis. Indeed, that is precisely the role of a secondary source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Rewritten.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This piece feels really does not feel like it has an importance to the article. It is trying to slander a few individuals and make statements that are against BLP to list. They are trying to pin 'Misogyny' on satire subs (TiA, which makes fun of tumblr post and radical feminism), and peoples porn preferences, without even knowing who these people are, without having talked to them, and without having any statements from them. It feels so much like people are pushing a POV to shoehorn this in, to once again, use this article as a soapbox. For those saying it isn't a BLP issue because its under pseudonames, ZQ is not ZQ's real name, yet people continue to call BLP issues on her. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Is her legal name important? No. Has it been suggested that GamerGate is full of anti-feminists and misogynists using GamerGate to further their crusade against women rather than having any actual interest in video game journalism? Yes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Are the legal names of the moderators important? No. Has it been suggested that they, as individuals, are women haters. Yes. Thats what makes this a BLP issue. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Is that what the content that was added to the article, either originally by NorthBySouthBaranof, or the modifications added by myself suggest? No. It just connects people who mdoerate KIA with moderators or "rape fantasy" subredits and anti-feminism subreddits.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

How does that add anything to the article? At all. That is seriously just a way to shoehorn in the, "These people are women haters, we just are not saying it blatantly." Who cares what type of porn they like? The subreddits they listed also are subs that make fun of radial feminism, which is easy to look up. As people have continuously said before, many of these quotes that are being added in are being used to try to get a one up on pro-gg people, instead of adding to the article. Hell, it still is a BLP issue to, because of the way it is trying to infer that they hate women. It doesn't freaking matter. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This is because the idea that GamerGate is a front for hating women is mentioned by many sources. There may be people who seriously think that video game journalism ethics are the goal, but there are still people on the outside looking in that identify an anti-feminist and misogynist streak, particularly with the anti-feminist and conservative right-wing bigwigs the movement has absorbed into itself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't -matter-. You are trying to single out individuals and making a "We aren't saying it, but we really are" statement about those individuals in a negative manner, and that is against BLP. Again, who cares what type of porn they like? There is no reason for that to be in the article, unless you want to put every pro-GG's person sexual preferences in the article, also. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Does the rewrite do anything like that? It's pointing out that two sources independently identified content they found to be questionable when regarding GamerGate's statements and the history around it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

YES! Again, it is trying to shoehorn in a "We aren't saying it, but we really are" statement. This is against BLP. Hell, we have no information about these moderators, and this article is trying to label them as woman haters, as well as are the people trying to push that edit through. Sexual preferences have no place in this article, since you cannot infer anyones questionability over that. Hell, I could give some anecdotal evidence and say I was part of a BDSM community before, have seen some scary shit, and everyone loved everyone. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This piece is just a smear job, and yet it's being added despite several protests. Someone tries to be bold and edits to remove bias, and they're reverted without conference. Then someone adds a smear piece to the article and plays guard dog to keep it in. I think that the losers with this Wiki article happen to be anyone who's approaching the thing with a passive, civil nature. YellowSandals (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not the fault of Wikipedia that the public at large takes this stance on such a recent topic.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

And sadly it appears you do speak for Wikipedia because nobody has been able to stop you. You were recommended to take a short break from the article and otherwise, apparently, this is all just splendid. YellowSandals (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have issues with my behavior, this is not the forum to discuss it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbBreak

While this edit is appreciated to defuse / better back the statement (while we affirm BLP issues), the approach that statement takes again points to the issues in the past I've pointed to about layering on subtle attacks / thumbing ones nose at the proGG side that this article does not need. You don't need both quotes; you can use just the Salon one, or a single word "anti-feminist" (I think the BF article used that), that makes the point clear without introduce more degrading language that is clearly only present to affect the tone of how this is read. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yet it would still be removed despite being sterilized as much as it could. BuzzFeed is a reliable source. Salon is a reliable source. The Devil's Advocate, there is no reason to remove this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The Salon statement is a single vague statement that doesn't even seem clearly verified. You are really just using it to justify giving weight to a single article that actually discusses this in-depth.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Two articles discuss moderators of KIA being involved in several other subreddits that they found questionable. It's verified. It's justified. BLP does not protect groups of people.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP does protect the individuals that those articles are focusing on though. Again, sexual preference has no place in the article. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

But those individuals are not being mentioned by name and are instead being lumped together as a group. And I doubt "rape fantasy" is a sexual preference.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

ZQ isn't mentioned by her real name. Certain users ARE being focused on in that article, that is why its the "KiA Mods". "Rape fantasy" is a sexual kink, that falls into sexual preference. I mean, Female dominants must be misandrist if they have "rape fantasies", right? (That was rhetorical to show just why there is no basis for sexual preference to be included.) PseudoSomething (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

What does Zoe Quinn's real name have to do with any of this? Why do you keep bringing it up? The fact of the matter here is that investigations were made by two sources and came to a conclusion that we are paraphrasing by noting the outside interests of people heavily invested in GamerGate that seem to exclusively focus on putting women down. That is all Wikipedia would be citing from both Salon and BuzzFeed. These people's online identities, separate from one person's pseudonym, are not protected by BLP, certainly not when they are being generalized as a group rather than the individuals within Wikipedia's voice.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I say it because of this, "But those individuals are not being mentioned by name" - Ryulong. Some of the KiA mods are being mentioned by name. It does not matter if it is a pseudoname, just like with ZQ. Using people's sexual preferences to call them women haters when we know nothing about them, is against BLP. Again, I have been apart of a BDSM community, I have a good friend, who is a woman, who enjoys her encounters more when the men scream in pain from it, this does not make her hate men. The non-sexual subreddits (example:TiA), make fun of extremist feminism, such as "Killing all men would make the earth a utopia" (not to mention, they make fun of redpillers, who are the opposite of extreme feminist.). This is a pure POV push to put that statement in there, and the 'revision' is just a way to shoehorn it in there and say, "See, we aren't -directly- saying it, but we sure are inferring it." PseudoSomething (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

In the content originally added by NorthBySouthBaranof and then heavily modified by myself, no one is being singled out. No one screenname has been lifted from Reddit and used on this article. And there is an extreme difference between a pseudonym used in one's professional life and an online screenname. Groups of people are not protected under BLP. People who use screennames are not protected under BLP. This is all a stretch to avoid adding something that puts the pro-Gamergate side, as usual, in a bad light. It has been repeatedly criticized that the movement is a front for misogyny, anti-feminism, and right-wing activism, and the minute that people off of Wikipedia come up with evidence to support those accusations, suddenly Wikipedia cannot at all cover it because it is suggested that it vaguely violates a policy. There is no BLP violation. Just wikilawyering.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You have a very liberal interpretation of "groups of people". Is the band, Clutch, considered a "group of people" who are therefore individually exempt from BLP? If I wrote an article accusing Clutch of believing that watermelon is sexier than humans, does that not violate BLP because the four guys in the band constitute a "group"? This is wikilawyering at its most insidious, Ryūlóng. YellowSandals (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between a defined group of people that use their real names and a group of online pseudonyms.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No, its a pure BLP violation, except it isn't against someone who is anti-GG, so you are wikilawyering to keep it in. They are being singled out from the group, in your revision they are, and in the article they are being singled out even more. THEIR SEXUAL PREFERENCES HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE IN THE ARTICLE. This is not the place to shame them for having a sexual kink, as you are trying to, and it violates BLP. Seriously, again, if you think that their sexual kinks make them women haters, let me call my friend, who is a woman up, who enjoys the same type of stuff toward men, and let me tell her how much she hates men, even though she is married to one and dating one. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The proposed addition is not mentioning any of these Redditors by name. There is only a vague description of the subreddits rather than the exact names. And the sexual preference ones are not the only ones in question. There's anti-feminism ones being mentioned too. And I don't frankly care about your friend and her predelictions. You're going full apples and oranges here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that you really only have one article that really discusses this. The other article, which only makes a brief mention of it, is actually already cited in the "political views" section. You are devoting a lot of weight to the BuzzFeed article, when it is the only source that seems interested in the matter. I would say the "nature and organization" section is inappropriate for any such details as well.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, it is a BLP violation because you are implying negative things against certain people away from the group. They deserve just as much respect as others do. Also, it doesn't matter about the other subreddits, because implying they are women haters is against BLP. (Not to mention, the other subreddits make fun of -extreme- feminist, as in "Killing all men would make the world a utopia, its there for all to see. They also make fun of redpillers, the opposite of that). Its not apples and oranges, its the exact same thing, and you are kink shaming them. That is against BLP, and it is a stupid thing to do anyways. Singleing them "KiA" admins out because of an article that singles them out individually, and implying they are misogynist (Because, you know, if you don't like normal feminism, you are a misogynist anyway /sarcasm), is against BLP. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It states admins on a specific board, which is not private info (it's advertized on the board's front page), so it's not as anonymous as you might think. If it was just "board users" that would be sufficiently anonymous. --MASEM (t) 22:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The article does single out certain moderators, not just saying its the mods of a certain board. Even if they didn't, singling out certain people (like KiA mods) and calling them women haters because they have a sexual kink and make fun of extremism, that is a slander. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that Wikipedia is not singling out certain moderators in its summarization of the BuzzFeed piece and the Salon piece. It is not a BLP violation to mention that the public moderation team of one forum is involved with moderation of several other forums the author saw fit to note. These are not known people being mentioned on Wikipedia. It is an anonymous group that no one is particularly identified by their online pseudonyms either in BuzzFeed or on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

They are still people, and implying certain people (the KiA mods) are women haters from moderating subreddits is slander. As well as what The Devil's advocate said, "You are devoting a lot of weight to the BuzzFeed article, when it is the only source that seems interested in the matter. I would say the "nature and organization" section is inappropriate for any such details as well." There is no reason for people's sexual preferences to be in this article. Oh, and pseudonyms do matter, again, look at ZQ being called ZQ. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Remember, we're not even supposed to link to articles that are pure BLP violations, no matter how vanilla we can strip it down. I'd note that the salon piece wouldn't fall into this, because the claim is offhandly made and not the purpose of the piece, but the BF piece is specifically such, if this is determined to be a BLP. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yet it is not a BLP violation. These are not known people with pseudonyms. They are anonymous people with pseudonyms identifying them as individuals that we are not discussing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It -is- a BLP violation, since these are individuals (PEOPLE) going by certain pseudonyms. Just because they are not publicly (EDIT: By this i mean widely) known does not mean they don't deserve the SAME RESPECT that BLP is set to give. Calling them women haters because of their sexual kinks is a BLP violation. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia calling them women haters? Is Buzzfeed calling them women haters? I don't see the phrase even remotely mentioned in their piece or in any of the attempts to cite this piece in the article. BuzzFeed lists some pseudonyms of people and their involvement in various other boards on the website that BuzzFeed has described as the following:

Indeed, a common thread among the moderators of r/KotakuInAction is that most of them moderate a constellation of subreddits wholly devoted to anonymously mocking the concerns, language, and appearance of people who identify as feminists.

And later

In all, seven out of ten of r/KotakuInAction’s human moderators either participate in or moderate subreddits devoted to either the physical and emotional degradation and humiliation of women, or in subreddits devoted to mocking and delegitimizing the arguments and appearances of feminists and “social justice warriors.” These online actions, while separate from r/KotakuInAction, are a far cry from a community that paints itself as the respectable face of GamerGate, unsullied by the rampant misogyny of unsavory fellow travelers.

How is any of this a BLP violation? They are not accusing anyone of women hating or king shaming anyone. They are pointing out the vein of anti-feminism and misogyny as stated by every other reliable source.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Women hater = Misogyny. Im using the definition. Buzzfeed does that. They are saying the mods are women haters because of their sexual kinks and their desire to make fun of extremism (even if it was all of feminism, it still does not pass BLP to call them women haters.). That article blatantly violates BLP, and as Masem said, we should not use it. Using the Salon article would be placing to much emphasis on a very very very very very small part of the article. Stop trying to kink shame people. PseudoSomething (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You are making a major semantic leap here. And how come when I argued that the mentions of the syringe sent to Milo Yiannopoulos were very very very very very small parts of the articles used to cite it I was wrong and we had to mention the syringe yet when you point out that the "rape fantasy" mention in the Salon piece is the same it's suddenly not allowed?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so now your pinning something I had nothing to deal with on me? Great. I try not to show up unless I have something significant to say. "Rape fantasy" doesn't mean someone hates the other gender, since both men and women have the fantasy on both sides of the issue. Implying someone hates women because they have a sexual kink or fantasy is against BLP (This would also mean you are saying women who have that fantasy toward men are man haters). PseudoSomething (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I feel like this is the end result of all the argumentation that Gamergate is immoral, with the core focus being on making the article reflect that. We finally just had a few editors crack, and they're bringing in personal smear pieces to bolster the assertion that Gamergate is "factually evil". This is the only logical place that a long moral battle could eventually wind up - because you can't prove what's going through people's heads, and eventually the only way you can sustain claims of "evil" is to start burying people in mud. All the while, screaming madly, "See! I told you they're evil!" as the people you bury suffocate. YellowSandals (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a "smear piece" to note that the people who moderate one of GamerGate's two most notable gathering places are also interested in a wide range of other misogynistic, anti-feminist and degrading-to-women topics. When the argument is that GamerGate is riven with misogynistic harassment and abuse and, in fact, is born of misogyny, linking those in positions of power with their personally-misogynistic beliefs is merely the gathering of evidence in favor of that position. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP also includes the talk page. Calling the moderators of KiA misogynist because of their kinks (which, by the way, are shared by both women and men) and their disagreement with extremist feminism (or feminism itself), is against BLPTALK. PseudoSomething (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a violation of BLP to describe something or someone as a source describes it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, you even went way past what the source said. Let me get some direct text for you. "Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to;" .... "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages". PseudoSomething (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, if that is the direction that reliable sources are going with the topic, then the Wikipedia follows suit. We reflect the world, we do not lead. Tarc (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If all the reliable sources hurled themselves off a bridge, would you as well? There must be a line! YellowSandals (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're looking for an encyclopedia that ignores what reliable sources say, you're not in the right place. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Argumentum ad populum doesn't get you very far in life, I'm afraid. Try harder. Encyclopedia articles exist based on what the world at large has to say about a topic. Not what everyone has to say, otherwise the Wikipedia would just be an aggregator of blogs and youtube celebrities. We have to have standards, thus the project focuses on sources with a reputation for fact-checking an accuracy in reporting. Tarc (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This is just sick. Sick in the head. It's becoming an inquisition. You're setting out to help destroy the reputations of individual people now, in the sole pursuit of proving to the world how evil they are. Maybe these people have evil intentions - I can't tell! But maybe, as Pseudo says, one of these people just has an uncommon kink. Maybe the others enjoy making light of extremism. This is not right, guys. No matter how you Wikilawyer it, it's damaging to depict individual people in a foul light like this, even if they use pseudonames. Would you not feel violated having your sexual interests aired on Wikipedia if we referred to you as "Tarc" and "NorthBySouthBaranof"? Could it not harm your standing among those who recognize you by those names? This is not justifiable! YellowSandals (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not chosen to involve myself in a very public movement to harass, threaten, drive out and generally make miserable women in video gaming.

Your stance on private information is rather convenient considering that the movement you stridently defend was launched by a jilted ex-boyfriend spilling his relationship drama on the Internet. GamerGate chose to make Zoe Quinn's sex life and personal relationships a public issue, which are now a permanent part of Wikipedia. It seems rather hypocritical to demand that external sources not make GamerGate supporters' personal belief and support of misogynistic and anti-feminist ideologies a public issue. Sauce for the gander, one might say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not defending the movement! These are individual humans! You've spent so much time with your head buried in the moral politics of this issue that you've gone completely blind! The righteousness you presume of your cause does not give you license to intentionally harm others! Exposing evil is not a public issues that Wikipedia endorses! YellowSandals (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, yeah, you are defending the movement, that's pretty clear from your edits here. That aside, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said we're here to "expose evil." But we are here to document what reliable sources say about GamerGate. If those reliable sources view GamerGate as a permanently-tainted cesspool of misogynistic harassment... then yeah, that's how the movement's going to end up being described here. My edits did not list individual pseudonyms or names, they merely discussed the fact that a media outlet has determined that some of the moderators of one of GamerGate's most popular forums hold similar positions in forums that feature content which can be charitably described as controversial, anti-feminist and misogynist. The media outlet argued that this fact supports the argument that GamerGate is inextricably linked to misogyny. That's all.

GamerGate has set out to destroy the reputation of Zoe Quinn, in the sole pursuit of proving to the world how evil she is. You seem to have no objection to our article's extensive recounting of salacious allegations about her personal and sex life, some of which are provably false. Why have you not called for the removal of that information, as it depicts an actual named individual person in a foul light? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if your edit didn't single any person out. As Masem said, the article violates BLP and can not be used. You also single people out by specifying the KiA mods. Also, sexual kinks are not misogynist (since both men and women share that kink, and are on on both sides of it), and being anti feminist (they are actually anti-extremist), doesn't make them misogynist. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem (and by extension yourself, TDA, and YellowSandals) is incorrect when it regards this source violating BLP. In both of the discussions on WT:BLP#Does BLP apply to persons only identified by their online username? and WP:BLPN#Gamergate controversy there is agreement that BLP does not protect groups or people with solely internet pseudonyms. I've restored the milder form of the section I had rewritten per both of those forums' explanations on BLP rather than Masem's attempt to play neutral moderator here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

WT:BLP doesn't agree [5]. --MASEM (t) 00:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Dude, I just read both conversations. You are wrong. 100% wrong. Both say if it points out individuals, even with internet pseudonyms, that it would violate BLP. ON BOTH CONVERSATIONS. (Well, on one conversation he was taking the whole issue philosophically and said that was an issue.) Dude, you just BS'ed what those two people said. It is still a BLP issue, im reverting it. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No. The conversations clearly say BLP is not being invoked properly here by preventing this source and statement from being used. BLP does not cover sources themselves. BLP does not protect people Wikipedia is not talking about. BLP doesn't say "do not say bad things about people". It just says "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." and that's what has happened here. Stop using it to prevent this one thing from being said. Stop using it to say using "misogynistic" is a slur and should not be used to describe the movement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it clearly says its a BLP violation.

"Strictly speaking, the fact that(redated) and friends moderate or are active on subreddits that publish material that seems abusive to women does not automatically mean that they are misogynistic or that their conduct in the subreddit in question has been impartial, nor does the article even strive to prove the causality. If I'd were to look at it objectively, I'd say it's just a long ad-hominem, and something that we'd probably not allow in a biography to begin with."

"Well, the bigger issue as you said is the use of Buzzfeed as a source for contentious BLP material, but without more specifics I think the general answer is yes. The persons behind those pseudonyms are living persons (or we cannot reasonably assume that they aren't, though some may not be) and fall under this policy, whether they're specifically identified by their real names or not"

"but if there is confusion as to whether BLP applies or not, I would assume that it does and act accordingly."

Stop violating BLP. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no BLP violation. Wikipedia's policies do not protect people who you accuse are being maligned in the sources Wikipedia uses. And you are only citing one opinion posted on that page. Multiple other people have come forward and said that there is no violation in what has happened. Groups of people aren't protected. This group of Reddit administrators that Wikipedia is itself not naming are not protected. They might be individually if we called them out in the article, but that is not the case here. Sources are not BLP violations. This does not apply to this situation. Masem is wrong. You are wrong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

YES THERE IS, even per WP:BLT. You asked over there and disregarded everything that said it was a BLP issue from two uninvolved editors for one person who has been involved on this article (I believe). They are individually people and are treated with respect per BLP. Do not add it again. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not chosen to involve myself in a very public movement to harass, threaten, drive out and generally make miserable women in video gaming. There are many in GG that are in it to challenge ethics, and as our sources noted, are getting their effected tainted and drowned out by the vocal minority of the harassers. We cannot blame that group as a whole for those if we are staying appropriate clinically neutral , even if the press has decided to do so without any evidence (not observations) that this is the case. That's the entire problem with this article is that it needs to stay out of the mudslinging that the press is doing while still accurately reporting on their concerns and analysis, and the same for the proGG, writing everything neutrally in a proper Wikipedia voice that does not assign unfounded blame to any part involved save for the unknown identities of the specific individauls that harassed and sent death threats to the various individuals. We cannot assume the bulk of proGG is to be blamed, but we can point out the press is assuredly thinking this by a preponderance of sources. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There are many that say they are all about "but ethics", but again, the media is not buying it. Sooner or later you're going to have to give in and accept that reality, Masem. No offense, but you're getting a little Neville Chamberlain-ish at this point, steadfastly holding to a middle road when no one...literally...else is. It is one thing for any one of us to simply say redditor X is a Gamergater as well as a mod of rapefantasy; that sort of thing would obviously not fly. But now that the media...buzzfeed and salon so far...are making an issue of it, highlighting the hypocrisy of Gamergaters who profess to be sympathetic towards the women who have been harassed ("it wasn't us!") during all this while at the same time participating in the denigration of women online, then that's fodder for this article. Trust me, it's only a matter of time before one of these people gets the violentacrez'ed. So far, the harassers have been pretty damn lucky that none of em has been exposed publicly. Tarc (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the middle road; that is the whole purpose of the encyclopedia. There is a very clear way to write this in the neutral position using the same number and proportion of sources but simply backing on the excess blaming and criticism from the press to the proGG side when the same points have already been made. We'll still fully cover how the majority of the press has condemned GG and written them off, but since there remain sources that still discuss the proGG with earnest (I've linked 3 from the past 2 days earlier, that included Slate, BBC, and Wash. Post), we will still give them the time of day. Even if 100% of the sources wrote off the GG effort as a misogynistic front in their opinion, we would still be writing our article in a manner that disengages Wikipedia from speaking in that same voice. --MASEM (t) 00:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This is nothing but a push for radical extremism. Can you not see you've become the thing you think you're crusading against? "How dare those Gamergate fools harass women for their sexual conduct! Why just look at their sexual conduct!"

You're not even arguing for anything rational at this point. You're trying to bargain an eye for an eye. YellowSandals (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

We are not talking about private conduct here, but about moderation of public forums. Andreas JN466 01:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

How does someone's sex interests impact their forum moderating abilities? What does it have to do with Gamergate, even? This article is just trying to establish evil of these people and nothing more. It shows how terrible this thing has become that tying Gamergate to evil has become a sole excuse to include defamatory content. YellowSandals (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

How is it defamatory to say that these guys moderate these forums if that's what they do? Andreas JN466 01:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and post the issues here, I messaged the KiA mods about this situation (since its them we are talking about), and there are two problems. TheHat2 (which was specified in the article), was doxxed, so he isn't just behind a pseudonym anymore. That, and BZ basically infers all the mods to be men... well one of the mods of KiA and TiA is a, in her words, "I don't like to air it publicly because I'm figuring it out myself, but if I had to be the 'civersity hire' I'd be non-binary, female, bisexual." Big problems using that article, away from BLP issues. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not our fault that someone was doxxed over this. And I do not see anything in the BuzzFeed piece insinuating that the moderators are all men.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh wow, so someone gets doxxed and you don't care? This isn't a man just behind a pseudonym anymore, this is a person with his actual name out there. That is a pure BLP issue. Also, the BZ piece basically insinuates it, calling them misogynist and hating women, when in fact, one is a female. This throws this article into the, "Maybe their information is an ad-hominem" circle. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not someone mentioned in the piece is irrelevant as no where in Wikipedia's voice do I intend to refer to that person. BLP does not apply.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter... the -source- references him. That is the root of the problem. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources are not subject to WP:BLP.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP. " Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.". Also, per TheHat2, "May not be their fault, but I'm no longer afforded the protection of anonymity online..." PseudoSomething (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources themselves are not subject to WP:BLP. The fact that his identity has been revealed is immaterial to the content of this article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

PER WP:BLPSOURCE. "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.". This is pure tabloid. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbBreak 2

Let's get back to a key point: working on the assumption this is NOT a BLP issue, and we will take BF as a RS in conjunction with the Slate piece, what does this information add? Remember: all these articles claim is that mods of a certain forums are also mods of forums that have highly sexually-changed art that do not put women in a kind light, from a broad moral standpoint. So they moderate strange fetish forums (for lack of a better term). How does this exactly relate to Gamergate, without evoking OR? (A point to keep in mind: KIA was started before GamerGate started) --MASEM (t) 01:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Because they are mods for what has since become the Gamergate forum and we have multiple other sources pointing out that misogyny and anti-feminism are aspects of the movement, including BuzzFeed and Salon (not sure what Slate piece you're talking about). That is the connection.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Salon. Regardless, that's accusation by association, which is original research. Should we say any GG members that play the games that have been identified by, say, Anita's "Tropes ..." series as misogynistic because they enjoyed a game that was called misogynistic, like BioShock? (Pretty sure the answer is no). --MASEM (t) 01:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If KotakuInAction is identified by reliable sources as the go to place for GamerGaters, and reliable sources identify that the moderators of that forum, the people who decide what is and is not allowed, also moderate several other forums that the reliable sources feel are of note due to the nature of the content within, and reliable sources state that GamerGate has issues with said content, and these sources make all these connections themselves, then that is something we can say on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I don't see how it is original research if the association and accusation are made by published sources. Ryulong is correct here. Andreas JN466 01:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that chain of logic is not established by the sources in that complete flow - parts of it, yes, but not the full case which is only inferred by tone and setup. You're making SYNTH connections that the sources do not explicitly state or would be considered routine by OR. --MASEM (t) 01:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, then let's make sure that the article does not go beyond what the sources state. Andreas JN466 01:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Annnnd? That's my original point, let's assume we include all sourced statements, which basically say, the main GG board, KIA, has moderators that also also moderators of fetish boards. What does this have to do with the GG controversy? I know what leap of logic is being sought her (as to say that because these mods are mods of a board that could be taken as misogynistic, they must be misogyntistic themselves, and because they moderate the KIA board, that board must be misogynistic) but there's no logic trail that can be sources there at all. That's assumptions there's a connection. Without that, it's like adding "The sky is blue" randomly to this article with no reason, and as such does not belong. (and this is atop the BLP/RS issues). --MASEM (t) 01:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

BuzzFeed argues, In all, seven out of ten of r/KotakuInAction’s human moderators either participate in or moderate subreddits devoted to either the physical and emotional degradation and humiliation of women, or in subreddits devoted to mocking and delegitimizing the arguments and appearances of feminists and “social justice warriors.” These online actions, while separate from r/KotakuInAction, are a far cry from a community that paints itself as the respectable face of GamerGate, unsullied by the rampant misogyny of unsavory fellow travelers. [...] r/KotakuInAction may be scrubbed clean of the elements of GamerGate that have made the movement anathema to much of the culture, but the online activity of its representatives undermine the subreddit’s stated premise and reveal it as a well-orchestrated front for a woman-hating goon squad." Salon makes a similar argument. It's the sources that make this argument, not editors on this talk page. Andreas JN466 01:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That's where it's make a BLP claim that we're still evaluating: participation/administration of one of those side mods does not imply anything about the nature of the KIA mod, but the sources are making that assumption. It's certainly a bit troubling that they are in there, but you cannot call them misogynistic simply by participation. (It is not a BLP issue that they are KIA mods, or that they mod the other forums) --MASEM (t) 01:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a category error, Masem. It is not a BLP violation to report what a reliable source says about someone. No one is proposing that we state it in Wikipedia's voice - we are proposing to state that BuzzFeed has reached this conclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, the reliable source says what it believes it has to do with GamerGate. This is, by definition, not anything to do with WP:SYNTH because the conclusion is drawn directly from the source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Salon and Buzzfeed both identified that misogynists and anti-feminists make up the GamerGate movement, despite everyone's wishes that it was solely a movement to push for ethics in video game journalism, and they have identified that people in charge of GamerGate's primary meeting place are also in charge of forums elsewhere on the website regarding anti-feminism and pornography that exclusively denigrates women (but this could arguably not need to be mentioned in the article). They have made a connection between anti-feminism (and other things) with GamerGate. Instead of this separate paragraph in the middle of nowhere, would it instead be prudent to add a sentence onto the paragraph discussing Jilani's analysis of Yiannopoulos's involvement in GamerGate? Something along the lines of:

A BuzzFeed writer also found that many of the moderators of the KotakuInAction subreddit also served as moderators for various anti-feminist* and misogynistic subreddits.

*I'm not sure if "anti-feminist" or "anti-feminism" works here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I really can't see how that's still connected. "GG has misogynistic aspects per press", is fine, "KIA is one main GG site" is fine, "KIA mods also mod 'clearly misogynistic' boards elsewhere on Reddit" is fine (assuming that the opinion about the boards are made. But that says zero if the KIA mods are misogynistic themselves, or how that relates to the GG population as a whole. --MASEM (t) 01:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Am I making any of those insinuations with my piece? I am suggesting that the above sentence be added to the paragraph under "political stance" or whatever it's called to accompany the Zaid Jilani piece.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fine. The connection made by the sources is obvious. There is stuff in the sources that could be used to make it explicit, but it doesn't seem necessary. At any rate, what Ryulong has proposed above does not go beyond the sources. Andreas JN466 01:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are insinuating something if its not clearly connected, as it tries to paint an entire 10,000+ movement by the actions of 7 people, which you simply cannot do. --MASEM (t) 02:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to again state that there is a BLP issue here, so nothing should be written on the main article about this, until there is clear indication that it is not. We have had uninvolved editors say it is, so I would say, since it even -could be- a BLP issue, we should not keep it. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The thing about it is the Salon piece is already referenced in the article with details about KiA mentioned. The problem with the addition by Ryulong is much more basic than BLP. My opinion is that this is not a BLP issue, but it is a question of NPOV and due weight. Ryulong originally tried to add a lengthy paragraph, which was way undue, but even the smaller segment was problematic in its size given the minimal sourcing on the matter and the use of direct quotes. It implied the statements about the nature of the subreddits were true. Salon source appears to be making a bit of a misrepresentation based on one Redditor's characterization of a subreddit and the other is mostly just latching onto the fact that some of the moderators may have a weird fetish.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I posted just a little bit up there, but TheHat2, which was specifically referenced in the article, has been doxxed, so his real name and info is out there. He isn't just a pseudoname behind a screen anymore, so an article calling him misogynist is pretty against BLP. It is pretty NPOV though, since fetishes are fetishes and don't say anything about the person, and it all seems like, as someone said, an ad-hominem. This adds nothing to the article, and basically calls them misogynist and hateful to women.... just by looking at their fetishes. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources are not restricted by BLP if they happen to say something bad about someone. And whether or not one of the persons mentioned in the piece was doxxed does not make it a BLP issue, again. And their fetishes are not the point of contention. It is generalizing the various other boards involved as anti-feminist and misogynistic. Not picking out any particular pornographic predeliction. Stop finding excuses not to use the content.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to talk about the other boards, then go look at them and their wildly free information. They make fun of extremism in the feminism community. TiA even makes fun of redpillers, the people who think they are above women. None of that is Misogynist, and calling them Misogynist because they make fun of extremism (or even feminism, since disliking feminism isn't Misogyny) is wrong. Other than it being a BLP issue because the article states that all those mods are Misogynist and degrade women. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't an issue with the intended addition.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

THIS IS A HUGE ISSUE. You don't just get to say, "Its not an issue" to whatever you want to put in. Your sentence is infering that the moderators of KiA are misogynist. That is NPOV, is against BLP, and honestly, not needed in this dang article. Just like people have said before, this article has a NPOV issue (Redacted) You don't get to group 7 people into the 'woman hating' circle because of 1 article that provides no evidence of it. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

While I've seen some articles today making KotakuInAction kinda reliable (though there still isn't mentions of 8chan which has got more mentions on media), this is a blatant BLP violation, and I can bet if it was me or another not so known editor I would have been banned for far less. It seems the BuzzFeed writer went with the intention of making a case against KiA being a misogyny central of harassment and bomb threats but found only informative links, so he attacked the admins for their fetishes and trolling. Loganmac (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The writer pointed out that several mods of KIA are also mods of other boards he found questionable. You can look deeper into the meaning as much as you want but that violates WP:OR.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is a reliable source. The author of the piece in question is a staff writer, he represents the company, if he's committing libel, the publication is on the line. That said, this KiA moderation posts offers very little, it's one piece of writing and one sentence. Compared to the entire litany of Gamergate material, it is fringe stuff (I mean, it's a fucking subreddit, not even a big one). New York is reliable too, but I don't think their coverage of what the 8chan core get up to on a weekend is of any relevance.[6] - hahnchen 02:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is a huge point, even if you take away the BLP, there is no significance to this, and is only being used to push a POV. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It was my understanding that "subreddit" just refers to any singularly themed board on Reddit itself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hahnchen, the article is far more than one sentence. [7] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I know that. That 8chan article is more than one sentence too. "One sentence" is Salon's passing reference. - hahnchen 03:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Since we're going to use Buzzfeed as a source now, I'm going to revisit all the sources I was told were too weak to be placed in the article, and include them. And none of you had better complain. Willhesucceed (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Willhesucceed... that's not how this works. Bring your sources to WP:RSN if you want to discuss their reliability. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

We're including Buzzfeed and excluding Reason. How is this happening? Willhesucceed (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Last I checked Reason, Techcrunch, HuffPo, et al. were being used in the article along with BuzzFeed (but not this particular piece from BuzzFeed). You really need to calm down.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop talking about other editors here on the article talk page, it violates the expected standards of conduct, and if continued, users may be sanctioned per Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate. Dreadstar ☥ 07:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Buzzfeed is now considered more reliable than Reason, Techcrunch, and the Huffington Post? Really? REALLY? Willhesucceed (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC) Not only is Ryulong using Buzzfeed, but he's using it to bring in a fringe matter. DOES NOBODY CARE ABOUT MAKING A GOOD ARTICLE? Willhesucceed (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC) Relax, Willhesucceed. It doesn't do you any good to work yourself up into a rage. Take a break from the article. This stunt was a pretty big blow-up and I'm pretty sure most of us would have been shuffled on out of here for trying something like it. It's... been insightful as to what, exactly, is the mindset behind some of the article's problems, at least. YellowSandals (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Gawker also comments on the fact that a kotakuinaction mod also heads disreputable, misogynist ones such as breakfeminazis, "a violent rape-fantasy subreddit that focuses on feminists, including game critic Anita Sarkeesian". So now that we have 3 sources...Buzzfeed, Salon, and Gawker...it is getting a bit harder to ignore. Tarc (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Not really - it's making the same claim (before BF, so it's novel there) but without explaining why in explicit words even though the tone of the article is certainly implicating something; that is, it identifies those users as mods of other boards, but it leaves to interpretation why this even could be a bad thing. So no reason to include (atop the issue that this is after GG has set its sights hard on Gawker making them a dependent source as well as being a weak RS prior to that). --MASEM (t) 13:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Not so much a claim as an observable fact. The so-called "mainstream Gamergaters" claim they condemn the misogynistic harassment of Quinn et al, yet several of these nominal "mainstream Gamergaters" are also most of misogynistic internet forums. That's very A-to-B hypocrisy that 3 sources are now highlighting. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Gawker is generally not a reliable source on GamerGate. They are very much not a third-party, which is required for reliability. As noted before, we already mention this a bit in the political views section, so it should not be included more at this point.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The last thing we should be doing is including hypocrisy from weak RS , and certainly not in a WP voice , from other sites. No one has yet to say why it is bad that they are also mods of those other boards. The intent and implication is clear, but we're simply not able to make the leap of logic without avoiding OR. Arguably it is a FRINGE viewpoint given how some of the proGG side arguments are treated similarly. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Eh I think this one falls under wait and see. We don't cover the KotakuInAction subreddit in any great depth at the present time and until that changes I don't think we need to include this detail. Additionally given the level of churnalism going on I think its safe to say that time will give us better sourcing options than buzzfeed.©Geni (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There's been a response by one of the moderators of the KiA subreddit towards the accusations, I understand that it isn't a reliable source, but it interesting to read his take on being involved with questionable subreddits. JAK0723 (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not something relevant to the editing of this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a straight ad hominem attack and is irrelevant to the topic.Sy9045 (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Who are you saying this to?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Attacking the personal lives of a few people who support GamerGate is an ad hominem attack. It's irrelevant to this topic.Sy9045 (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This was not an attack on "the personal lives of a few people who support GamerGate". This was analysis by a writer of the public behavior of people in charge of a GamerGate meeting place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Minor Cleanup

I am noticing a lot of phrasing that isn't the best. I will attempt to remove the unnecessary bits without changing context. If anyone has issues feel free to revert, as I am doing a quick once over just to improve readability in the lead. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Gah the lede is making my brain feel like mush. I should be done with a quick scrub in a few minutes I would appreciate feedback. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You probably now hold the record for the most number of uncontroversial edits to this page. Looks good so far, but careful with the lede. It's a mess as everyone demands reams of sourcing pretty much every statement. Strongjam (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Primarily I am just trying to create cleanup. I don't want to change anything (hence why I said by all means revert) I just don't like when I read paragraphs and my mind starts asking what. It happens on articles a lot especially with a lot of edits. I tend to do better with tightening syntax and polishing then creation as I usually don't have a plethera of sources available to me. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• I returned the date formats back to a unified single style and split out the notes from impacting the references and turned the portal boxes into a single portal bar and prepped the See Also section for other cases if need be. Good work on cleaning up the prose Tivanir2. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Unreadable

Sorry if this comes through as disrespectful to editors that obviously are passionate about the subject, and by the look of it have spent countless hours debating and editing this article, but I'd encourage you to think of the reader. The article as it stands now is basically unreadable. A reader coming to this article to learn about the controversy, will have to traverse very dense copy over almost 10,000 words and at the end I am not sure if that reader will be the wiser. Please consider at least writing a concise and well written lede summarizing the controversy, if splitting the article is too difficult to contemplate. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologise on behalf off all of us that wants to make this neutral. There are unfortunately some elements here, 2-3 in particular that tries to make this a propaganda piece. --Torga (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

My friend, see m:MPOV. We all have our biases, but given time and eyeballs, articles reach a point of neutrality, eventually. You will be better served by toning down your attacks on other editors. It never helps. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there'll be any significant improvement until the controversy dies down and we can look at all sides from a critical distance and perspective. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not going to calm down. This has been going on for years, except all the parties involved didn't know they had so many supporters. Maybe they will move on to something else, but I very much so doubt it. Countered (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I've said this before, the less opinion we have in this article now (from both sides), in terms of trimming out quotes, the more readable this will become, it will make the article's tone less biased, and basically tell the facts to the fundamental details while we wait for a longer-term analysis from people actually skilled in that to provide their comments on the matter. --MASEM (t) 06:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I took a stab at the lede. It is a humble attempt at a succinct and neutral presentation of the subject. I hope it is useful, and happy editing. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

+1 from me. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I did a bit more condensing (Ironholds did some but I think their change I effectively did too), and added in a few new points on both sides of the matter that are clearly part of the broad overview. I've also made it clear what the GG movement is, which was still something lost in the lead. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to change it, but I'd be surprised if this ends up staying "Gamergate is also the name of the movement within the video game community at the center of the controversy, challenging the status quo of video game journalism ethics." Seems most WP:RS don't take the claim that their challenging the status qou of ethics seriously. -- Strongjam (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I did add later in the lead that there are claims that the ethics is a front for harassment, to address that factor (which we can't deny, its a stance taken by a non-trivial fraction of the press). --MASEM (t) 16:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Explaning why some angry gamers turned to harassment

One line to consider in the lead is the last sentence (which hasn't been touched by the above changes I don't think): "This move to recognize games as art, prompted opposition from traditional "hardcore" gamers who view games purely as a form of entertainment, resulting in harassment of female figures in the industry" There's a logic step missing here, how you go from angry hardcore gamers to harssment, which I'm not sure we have properly yet covered in the article. I think it can be partially explained when we consider that the culture of the Internet leads to this type of behavior, but I don't think we've really got that in the article. If we can't really explain why some used harassment, we shouldn't necessarily link it this way, but I am pretty sure we can, just need that sourcing in the body. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

How about "This move to recognize games as art prompted opposition from traditional "hardcore" gamers who view games purely as a form of entertainment, resulting in a strong backlash against and harassment of some figures in the industry, primarily women." I'm pretty sure I was correct to remove the comma after "art".TuxedoMonkey (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Not quite - we know their dislike of the changes in the industry resulted in the harassment/movement, but the question is "why", that I would like to make sure we can answer in the body to reflect that in the lede. I am sure I've seen explanations, such as that the Internet and the ability to be anonymous has made such type of reactions more common, but we just need to make sure that "why" can be sourced in the body to be used in the lead. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

[8] This is the type of article that I'd like to make sure we have discussed in the body so that the connecion of why "angry young men on Internet" is a likely case for why harassment was an option for some. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

[9] Another example. I think this point can be made just identifying that the Internet w/ anonymous social media has generally considered to be a hostile place (and moreso if you're female), and that harassment has become an increasingly used tactic to express displeasure, with external, non-GG-related studies like these. In the body, I'm thinking this is on the "Attack on women" section to explain how this has been an issue in the past for the Internet. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I see what you're getting at. Working off the new version (I'm fine splitting it into multiple sentences): "The resulting culture war , combined with the anonymous and quickly-moving nature of media such as Twitter and imageboards, has led to harassment of female figures in the gaming industry." I'm not crazy about "quickly-moving". Direct? Immediate? TuxedoMonkey (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone explain to me how Buzzfeed is more reliable than these

http://reason.com/archives/2014/10/12/gamergate-part-i-sex-lies-and-gender-gam

http://reason.com/archives/2014/10/22/gamergate-part-2-videogames-meet-feminis

http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue-with-2-sides/

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/gamergate-and-women-in-video-game-culture/543c686878c90a71ff000157

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/gamergate-an-un-pc-rebellion/16029

http://wraltechwire.com/is-video-game-media-corrupt-inside-the-gamergate-debate/14077053/

Each of these articles are as if not more reliable than Buzzfeed. Furthermore, all of these articles cover topics that are NOT fringe. And yet we're excluding them.

Willhesucceed (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Several of these are in the article. What is your issue exactly?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

We really should be stripping away any weak RSes as well as those tied specifically to video game sites in favor of using mainstream sources (which will affect both sides of the matter, but will avoid "why can't we use this?" source arguments when they see weaker sources being used here). --MASEM (t) 05:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

My issue is that apparently Buzzfeed is reliable for fact but Reason isn't. Willhesucceed (talk) 06:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone outright said that Reason.com is not reliable?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I checked the Talk archives briefly, there were concerns about Reason's accuracy because the author got basic facts wrong about the background. But we're still using it. Woodroar (talk) 06:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I fear this may be a thinly veiled attack on me because I questioned if Reason.com was reliable when arguing over the inclusion of Milo's syringe incident.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, is that HuffPo Live the one where they handpicked 3 people out of #NotYourShield or the one where people from two sides talked about everything and that one #NotYourShield person from the prior night said she was neutral?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

And two of these were written by a "political consultant" who works at a PR firm. One of which is actually in the article. Woodroar (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Official GamerGate Website

Still now I can't see the official website of the GamerGaterepresented here or removed. There are numerous news sources and articles that take reference to GamerGate website such as #GamerGate's scary plan to wipe Gawker Media from the face of the Earth and official reddit forum What is #GamerGate? | Reddit -  abhilashkrishn ^talk 13:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Official is a strong word. Looking at their website they say "In no way are we an official GamerGate website. We are an aggregate website on GamerGate." I'd say inclusion is premature at the moment unless more WP:RS point to them. -- Strongjam (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree that we can't really call it the "official" GG site (though I'm aware that KIA is trying to push it's standardization). But presumably in time, just like it took some time to be clear that KIA/8chan were the primary hubs for discussion around GG, once other mainstream sources start to recognize this we can consider inclusion. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Entire paragraph dedicated to opinion of The Frisky

Who is Rebecca Vipond Brink? And how is her opinion given more space than the NYT, Time, The Washington Post etc in the Media response section. The Frisky is a journalism-lite gossip blog, with the tag line, "Celebrity gossip, relationship advice, sex tips and more for real women everywhere!"

I would remove the entire paragraph which was originally added in this edit. (I'm not sure about the Media response section at all, given the entire article is pretty much just Media response, but even if we move those paragraphs out of there, I don't want to see The Frisky represented.) - hahnchen 13:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This is part of the basic issue of the MEdia response is that it is using huge quote walls from not-all-experts in this area, to re-justify the lack of any respect the media are giving proGG. Quotewalling from single sources is what is influencing the tone of this article. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(To be clear since I know someone is going to take this wrong: we definitely need to document the media's impression of GG, we just don't need 3-4 paragraphs per single source for that opinion, and should be trying to use more summary, paraphrasing and the like w/ sourcing. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"and has the potential, if it successful, to financially harm Gawker"

Fix that extra "it". Tat (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tatarize: WP:SOFIXIT. Are you unable to edit the page yourself? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There's been some buggy reactions and knee jerk reversions after attempts to correct grammatical errors. I gave up trying myself. Kitsunedawn (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

"Gamergate" as a controversy and as a movement

The article introduces Gamergate as "a controversy". But it also refers to "Gamergate supporters". This doesn't make sense to me. Are Gamergate supporters therefore supporting a controversy? I think it's very confusing for the casual reader right now.

Is it not the case that Gamergate is not itself a controversy but a controversial movement? Maybe not - but either way, can we rephrase things somehow? Popcornduff (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate is a bunch of people using a hashtag, each for their own individual purpose and reason and definition and ax to grind. You cannot call something a "movement" when everyone is going their own personal direction. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If they have self-identified themselves as a movement (Which they have) and people in the press have respected that title (Which they have, even if they say with some doubt re: front for harassment), we can use that title. We can't bring in preconceptions about a group into a neutral encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems plausible to me to call it a movement, or an ostensible movement, but I'm not too bothered about whether we use that exact term. I'm more concerned about the readability of the argument. We talk about "GamerGate supporters" without actually explaining what it is they're supporting. How can you "support" a controversy? If GamerGate is a controversy, what does it mean to be pro-GamerGate or anti-GamerGate? It's like saying "pro-Watergate" - what does that mean? Popcornduff (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That's all fine and good, but we do not need to distinguish between the "movement" and the "controversy" as the RS used treat them as the same thing. The movement is the controversy. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring anything of the quinn/4chan logs, we can verify that "Gamergate" was first used by those either challenging ethics and/or performing harassment as part of the movement (Which at the time had other names that we can't use here at all) with the press adopting the term as the controversy and not the group. The group later would take the term as the name for their movement. Hense the controvery comes first, but to understand when we say who is a "Gamergate supporter" it is necessary to spell out the movement to identify that they are the ones, from their POV, trying to ask for better ethics. That defines the two sides, broadly, for the rest of the lead. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring what we can identify, what the reliable sources have been clear about for a long time is "ostensible" reasons are merely "ostensible". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Which still means they acknowledge it exists, so we take out the weasel words and go with that. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This is an essentially-unanswerable question because the "movement" has no clearly defined goals, no leadership and really no organization whatsoever. "GamerGate" is whatever anyone who uses the hashtag wants it to be, more or less. Which means there's really no way to engage it in any sort of meaningful discussion and no way to clearly disassociate it from the harassment campaigns other than no true Scotsman. We can vaguely describe them as "journalism ethics" but plenty of reliable sources have pointed out the vapidity of that phrase because those "ethics" complaints usually don't really have anything to do with actual journalism ethics, but end up being "we don't like the way you reviewed a game." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

But we can perhaps be more careful and not use the term "gamergate supporters" and be more accurate with "some people using the gamergate hashtag"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Man, I didn't realise what a can of worms I was about to open here. Guess that was inevitable considering the subject matter. My original question wasn't supposed to be about whether Gamergate is a "movement", but rather how we can write about Gamergate in terms of "supporting" Gamergate if we're instead defining it as a controversy. (e: I wish I'd worded my original comment better in that respect.) Your response is the only one here that has a concrete suggestion on that matter, so thanks! Popcornduff (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no movement. "Gamergate" is a bunch of people doing different things under the umbrella of a hashtag, and the notability derives directly from the controversy these anonymous people have generated. Most of those things are centered around harassment of those who support Zoe Quinn and others, while a handful claim it's about ethics. Reliable sources, however, come down squarely on the "it's primarily about harassment" side. Tarc (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

+1. Ironholds (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources acknowledge there is a movement even if they deny its goals, aims, or structure. We can include all their complains about the movement and its lack of defined notion, but we cannot act like there is no movement, as that is verifyable. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources acknowledge harassment is the core of the average "gamergater". If you wish to suggest that there is an organized movement to harass, then I'm all for that. Otherwise, no, there is no "movement", only random anonymous internet users who use this and similar hashtags. Also, y'know, I think it's about time you peruse WP:BLUDGEON and consider the possibility that you do not need to respond every single time to every single thing someone with an opposing point-of-view posts. It's honestly getting to be a bit wearying. Tarc (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No, the sources do not say that. They say that the vocal minority of those that harass under the name GG are diffusing and tainting any types of efforts that those actually involved in the "movement" to make themselves legit, leading to the advice of this group to move to a new title and condemn the harassment themselves. No source has said that the majority of GG is involved in harassment, though they do say that as long as they don't take action to stop it, they're not helping their cause. This is a far different than what you are claiming. And the reason I need to respond is that I feel I am the only established editor (short of Diego) on this page that sees the blatantly obvious bias that the other established editors are applying, in a tag-team fashion (described on my arbcom statement, just stating that here to explain myself), in part because this issue is very polarizing, but we have to work extremely hard to stay unpolarized in everything. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"They're not involved in death threats, they're just refusing to disassociate themselves from those who issue death threats"? At what point does silence become collusion? Ironholds (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That is not a question we are here to answer. I can speculate that if this keeps on in the same fashion, with continued random harassment of various people, and no effort is made to stop it, even the present press that have tried to give some reason to the proGG side will completely abandon them within the next few months. Or it will be legal action, or something else, that will cause the movement to fall out. We'll have a clear point when the press fully on GG where they cannot defend them anymore , at which point we have little choice here but to follow that lead. But that's all "if", and only personal speculation based on inaction by the proGG side. Until then, we stay neutral in tone and approach. --MASEM (t) 21:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources which discuss the vaporous and vacuous nature of the "journalism ethics" smokescreen, pointing out that GamerGate has yet to actually identify and articulate any legitimate ethical issue it's concerned about. "You need to stop talking about sexism in gaming reviews" is not viewed by anyone as a legitimate issue of journalism ethics, except insofar as it would actually be *unethical* to modify reviews at the behest of an external demand. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Which I am not questioning that (that the press is calling out the movement as a smokescreen) - and in fact we have to include as a significant viewpoint. And while very few (I'd be hard press to find a source in a few minutes) give any credible actionable items to the reviews claim, they are at least acknowledging that some parts of GG has brought forth arguments more related to disclosure that can be acted on. There is cover of the proGG movement in a neutral light - just nowhere close in the balance to what the rest of the media thinks of them but nowhere near enough to ignore as FRINGE. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"I feel I am the only established editor (short of Diego) on this page that sees the blatantly obvious bias that the other established editors are applying..." If you sit down at the table and don't see the sucker... Protonk (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm taking the fact that there's a huge voice of people that aren't at the table but are yelling off screen that there's an obvious problem here as validation there is something wrong. And no not to kowtow to their "demands" that this be about ethics first and skirt off the harassment. Just fixing the tone. For example, the lead right now at least as of this [10] is , in mind, about as neutral as we can get with it and a point I'm relatively satisfied with it - note it is clearly in favor of the antiGG arguments per the predominace of the case in sources, but also makes sure that proGG is not wholly "evil", identifying some elements trying to do good. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, it isn't "a huge voice of people." It's a tiny fringe, relatively speaking. The fact that they are yelling loudly over the Internet does not, in any sense, validate their arguments. It's clear that GamerGate supporters are unhappy with the way reliable sources have covered their movement. It's far from clear that their arguments have any merit whatsoever. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

But some of their arguments are valid within WP policy; certainly a minority of them, but they have identified just small things that don't change the narrative, that don't change the predominance of antiGG sources, that simply makes the tone of the article no more accusational than the sources already do for us. At least a decent fraction of them are well aware Wikipedia will never write an article favorable to them, but they are looking for one that gives them the same type of treatment that we give to other people or groups that, popularly, are considered bad or evil ala ISIL. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

GG is as much a movement about ethics in games journalism as scientology is a religion built on harmony and faith. We shouldn't be in the business of carrying water for a fringe viewpoint just because it's the message coming from 4chan/reddit and has been espoused by a fairly small group of useful idiots and fellow travelers, in contrast to the majority of reliable sources. This isn't about calling GG evil or even misogynist, it's about not being taken in by that core fiction. Protonk (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

And considering that the bulk of the RS are critical of Scientology as a fake religion, please see how neutral our article on that is Scientology. It's FRINGE obviously, but there's serious discussion of it's basis, and the criticism is contained to a few sections, nor does the article dismiss in a WP voice that it is not a religion; every place that it is questioned it identifies who is speaking that, so that there is no doubt that WP makes the claim. That's what we have to do here to. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Protonk, if you're going to compare GamerGate to Scientology, maybe we could facture an article similar to the structure of Scientology? Maseam's right especially regarding the tone and neutrality. Criticism is due weighted and the like, even if it's covering fringe material. Tutelary (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Eventually this article will likely get broken up into smaller ones, but that's a discussion for another time. Protonk (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You write a lot about how we shouldn't talk about GG as evil or we should specifically note where criticism comes from when making it, so that it's not in the encyclopedia's voice. So far as it goes, I'm all for that. Where I have a problem is the insinuation of the fringe claim that GG is a movement about ethics in games journalism with only a small and unfortunate vocal minority ruining the party for everyone by harassing women into our article. That's the matter at hand and the source of a lot of the disagreements. Whenever this problem is brought up, you've reframed it as us needing to move criticism out to other voices, which isn't the issue at all. Protonk (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

To The Red Pen; [11], [12], [13], (parody news, see below) [14], [15], [16], [17] These sources all describe GamerGate as a movement. Tutelary (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

lololol. Did you just paste in a clickhole link? Protonk (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, to demonstrate that even Parody news calls it a movement. Also do a Ctrl + F in the source code, Red Pen also referred to it as a source in the context you're implying I am. Tutelary (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It certainly demonstrates something. Protonk (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• To address the issue of TRPOD's issues with movement: mainstream RSs acknowledging the Gamergate movement (even if they question the motives) [18], [19], [20], [21]. "Gamergate movement" gives ~4,100 GNews hits, compared to "Gatergate" giving about 36,000, so it is significantly considered as a movement. Again, we can use the negative and sometimes dismissive idea that it is a movement from a large number of sources, but we cannot deny that they call themselves a movement. --MASEM (t) 23:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You appear to want it both ways on that. Artw (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

GNews as a measure of what reliable sources say is not particularly useful; it aggregates kind of a lot of stuff. And please make your mind up; either the "gamergate movement" is a movement with a cohesive set of core interests and values, and should be described as such, or it is not a cohesive movement, and so the death threats and refusal to disassociate from them do not reflect on the "movement" as a whole. Ironholds (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

IT CAN BE BOTH because there are differing viewpoints on this. These are not mutually exclusive points because we are primarily working from opinions of the press, not hard facts. Again, the Scientology article is a good example of how we treat this on WP. We talk about the basis of the "religion" in a fair manner, making no assumptions on its motivations or goals being in earnest or not, and then we address the fact that most sources laugh it off as a rather elaborate hoax. We speak to both points in the same article, attributing both parts to appropriate sources. We can do the same here. There are sources that say it is a movement, with no strings attached, so we can talk about its goals/ideals regarding ethics from those. And then there are sources (many more sources, but not enough to make the first point a FRINGE one) that we can say that some may consider a movement but used as a front for harassment. But key is that most sources will call it a movement, but whether it is a movement for ethics or something else is a point of debate that we can address further in this article. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Please also note: we do not state as a fact in WP's voice that it is a movement about ethics, just that it is some type of "movement" - Gamergate became the name of the movement within the video game community at the center of the controversy., which leaves it vague enough to address that what the movement's actual goals are are unknown. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Can *anyone* describe what legitimate journalism ethics issues Gamergate is really interested in? No? Then the movement's actual goals are pretty well-known, because they're demonstrable from what the movement has done — leap all over an ex-boyfriend's drama dump to slut-shame a woman, harass a whole bunch of women in the industry, demand that game reviewers stop talking about social issues in games, and scream bloody murder at anyone who says they're not about harassment. WP:DUCK is in effect with this "movement," Masem. At some point everyone concludes what you are based on what you've accomplished. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

DUCK absolutely will not apply to article content without the support of sources, that's original research of the worst type - it's fine for discussing the behavior behind the scenes but using DUCK in article space is a violation of all core principles. And no, we don't need to actually have to have full understanding of what their motives are to be called a movement though we do have enough RSes to identify they wnat disclosure, and they are now working the consumer revolt angle with the ad campaigns. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that 'consumer revolt' is also supported by sources; [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] (Looks bloggy but listing anyways), [28]. Tutelary (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Reading your sources, they don't seem to support your claim well. The Verge has the term 'consumer revolt' in sarcasm quotes. It only appears in the comments of the Daily Kos piece. Medium is self-published. TechRaptor is not a relialbe source, and the article cited is an opinion column. Huffpo calls it an "ostensible consumer revolt (the verge uses the same term in another article). So you have exactly one source, the Guardian column, that appears to be legitimately calling it that and several that appear to be treating the claim with suspicion: there are actually several more online that do the same, putting the term in quotes as The Verge does or using language similar to Huffpo, saying the movement 'bills itself' as a consumer revolt. The only other source that appears to be seriously referring to gamergate as a 'consumer revolt' is Breitbart. This is a distinctly minority view. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the term "consumer revolt" is a self-ascribed term by the proGG side [29]; hence why a source like the Verge may use it in sarcastic way. That term should probably put into quotes, and ascribed to a source to be clear. --MASEM (t) 01:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of that some gaters claim that gamergate is a consumer revolt, but my reading of Tutelary's comment (especially given that this is a discussion of whether or not gamergate can even be properly called a 'movement') was that these sources supported the idea that gamergate is a consumer revolt, when in fact most of them do the opposite, treating the claim with suspicion. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

To not call it a movement or a consumer revolt would belie the sources as this is documented; at the same time, to call it a movement or a consumer revolt and not address the opinion of the press that it is a front for harassment is also belying the sources. Both aspects are included to follow NPOV. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree emphatically on the second count especially: calling it a consumer revolt uncritically would be inappropriate because we have only a tiny minority of sources that even use the term, let alone actually call it a 'consumer revolt' as opposed to reporting that somebody else called it that. And if we treat it as a movement, we need to do so as the sources do: that is, we can't treat it as an ethics movement in WP's voice becuase we don't have good sources for that claim. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope, that's not how it works. Remember: the bulk of what the press have said are opinions, not facts. Since there is evidence that the GG group itself has called itself a movement and/or a consumer revolt, as a primary party of the event, we should use what they call themselves (since that also can be documented by others), making sure it is clear it is self-described. Obviously, I agree we cannot leave it hanging on that and not include any facet of the press's doubt about the movement/revolt aspect. But we cannot act like the press is not at least giving some benefit of a doubt when it saying, effectively "GG describes itself as a movement about ethics, but really doubt this is their true intentions". We can stay NPOV by saying "GG is a self-described movement based on addressing ethics issues in journalism, but this concept is broadly challenged by the press, stating the movement appears as a false front for harassment." That's appropriately neutral that can be sourced with no issues. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it's your opinion that when reliable news sources say that gamergate's only notable activities have involved misogynistic harassment they're 'only opinions,' but we don't treat news sources as opinions just because some editors don't agree with them. If this were only sourced to actual opinion pieces, which are clearly labeled as such by any reputable source, then you'd have an argument, but that's not the case here. What is your bar for accepting mainstream press coverage as factual if the coverage we currently have is not sufficient? The misogyny and harassment are what we have decent sources for. They're the only reason this article even exists. We're not going to cram the article full of weasel words saying that 'the press claims' this or that, but we absolutely do need to start better representing our sources in terms of qualifying 'but ethics!' as nothing more than an unfounded and widely discredited claim. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The press is not a neutral party in this, because they are part of the events (some more than others). They are reporting facts - how the harassment occurred and how that went down for example - but they are also making a lot of assumptions past that, that are valid logical conclusions but they have no evidence to support the result as facts. The better, less biased/less involved sources (mainstream sources) are reporting this properly, saying "It is likely that..." type language, so that they are not assigning facts to what GG is; the more biased ones ditch that language all together. Take for example (first good hit I've seen), from Boston Globe who I'm pretty sure most will call less biased in this: [30] The mostly unknown participants behind GamerGate — named for its Twitter hashtag — contend that they are fighting against what they see as favoritism and a lack of ethics in gaming journalism. They’re also unhappy about what they see as an increasingly liberal agenda in video games. Critics say that GamerGaters are brutish bullies trying to drive women out of a field that men have long dominated, using tactics that include online harassment and “doxxing,” slang for posting personal information, such as a home address, bank information, and Social Security number. It neither sides or condemn GG, and it does not try to report what GG claims is the cause, or the other press's reaction as fact, but that it is a debate -- properly describing this as all opinions so far. That's how we have to do this here. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Fucking nonsense. If the press is not reliable then we need to delete the article as failing to have significant coverage in reliably published sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I never said they were unreliable - I said they are clearly expressing opinion, not facts, at times. Major difference. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of the sources. Gamergate is not a special case. Its widely discredited claims of 'but ethics!' do not entitle it to special treatment under WP:RS. We have many reliable sources that are all presenting this issue in the same way, and we must follow them. Our mainstream and industry sources are consistently reporting on specific cases of harassment and the general issue of hostility to women in gaming, and are only giving the 'ethics' angle brief mentions and treating it as a claim, and not the movement's purpose. Contrary to your ongoing contention that this article is biased against gamergate (if nothing else I hope your RFC has made it plain that that's not the case) the article is currently exhibiting an WP:UNDUE problem by failing to treat the ethical claims the way our sources do. It is factually true that gamergate actually involves issues of misogyny and harassment in gaming culture, as the article states: we know this because there has been widespread reporting on these issues in the mainstream media. There are no sources for legitimate ethical complaints or concerns, only for the repeated but never supported claim that gamergate is about ethics in journalism. Therefor, the controversy centers on misogyny and harassment, but it does not 'center on' journalism ethics in the same way. We have sources for one, and not for the other. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not making GG a special case, I'm pointing out that the bulk of the press sources, when they are trying to characterize the GG side, are making opinions and conclusions based on their observations and these do not make it fact, regardless of how much you want it to be. That doesn't mean we don't cover them; the opinions of the press side will for the foreseeable future have to be the predominate weight of the article. But when the press claim that GG is misogynistic (for example), it is a claim, not a fact, and that difference must be recognized; the less biased/more neutral/more mainstream sources all present the issues of GG in the appropriate tone of their opinion or opinions of others, but not facts. That's is how we have to use the sources. We as WP editor cannot take the stance that GG is misogynistic because that would be taking the opinion of the press, and that would be an outright violation of NPOV. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

To add one thing: it's important to recognize the level of RS quality here. The higher up in RS quality ones goes on articles, in general that all means better journalism. So pieces like the Boston Globe piece above, or past sources from the WA Post or New York Times, are very clear that when they charge the GG side with a negative statement, it is clearly written as an opinion and not an objective fact. On the other hand, the weaker RS, and those sources clearly involved in the matter, are less likely to have that same level of journalism quality, are going to wear that opinion on the sleep and not even attempt to distinguish it from fact. But that is the nature of RS and biased sources. That's why we have to consider that this situation is one where systematic bias applies. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, your claims that the higher quality sources support your view is unfounded. We have sources for the misogynistic harassment. Saying that gamergate is a controversy that concerns issues of misogyny and harassment is completely acceptable based on our sources, because that is essentially the only aspect that is attracting attention. You are making arguments that would be useful against proposed language like 'Gamergate is a misogynistic harassment campaign that began when...' That is not what is being proposed here. So please try to focus on what people are actually saying rather than arguing against changes nobody is attempting to make. Our sources cover the misogyny issue - it doesn't matter whether a source says in its own voice 'gamergate is about harassment;' if a source says 'gamergate claims to be about ethics' and then goes on to describe the actual effects of the movement, what it is doing is presenting the events that lead people to say that the movement is about misogynistic harassment and not providing any evidence for the 'but ethics!' angle. So saying 'gamergate is a controversy over journalistic ethics' is not acceptable based on our reliable sources, because unlike the former issue, all we have is evidence that people have claimed such. We don't have sources for actual, legitimate ethics concerns that are presented by our reliable sources as a 'controversy about ethics.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The controversy yes, because is factually true that the press have used the word misogyny to describe the events. But this is very much why we have to distinguish between the controversy and the movement. We have no factual evidence that the people that support GG are misogynistic, only claims - the same claims that lead to why we can call the controversy about misogyny. And it is patently false that we don't have sources about the ethics claims by GG - there's been plenty of strong RS that have documented some of the concerns eg [31] for example. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The word 'ethics' does not even appear in that source. Can you be specific about how you believe that source provides anything more than evidence that gamergaters claim that gamergate is about ethics? I haven't contested that - we don't need the source about the party in the strip club to cite it - but I'm contrasting the 'but ethics!' complaints, which so far as our sources are concerned are all talk, with the well cited discussion about the treatment of women in gaming culture that the issue has sparked, complete with many cited examples of specific incidents and issues relating to that discussion. That's really the problem here: we can't treat this as an article about the movement rather than about the controversy because of the well-cited fact that there is simply no way to define it neutrally: we can only cover the events surrounding the term and the controversy they sparked. This is why bending over backwards to treat the 'but ethics!' claims 'neutrally' - that is, treat them as if they were as well cited as other discussion about the issue - is inappropriate. This isn't an article about the 'movement,' it's an article about the controversy surrounding that movement, because that's what we have sources for. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There's other sources that talk about other things, and some of there arguments are ethics related even if they don't use the word ethics. At the present time, this article is about the controversy, but it is petty and against the sources to ignore the fact there is a recognized movement that is also going by Gamergate, but we are able to throw several critiques of the movement (that ethics are a front for harassment, etc.) - which doesn't deny it exists, just that it exists for a far different reason than its apparent reason. There is no bending over backwards - it is actually using the sources in the proper neutral manner which is not being don't presently. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There's other sources that talk about other things, and some of there arguments are ethics related even if they don't use the word ethics Be specific, please. I haven't seen that there are sources that treat 'but ethics!' with anywhere near the level of depth as the debate over misogyny and harassment that this movement has sparked. We have sources for the statement that gaters claim that gamergate is about ethics, and sources for the fact that gamergate is notable primarily (indeed almost exclusively) for the issues it has raised about the gaming industry's treatment of women. There's simply no comparison: this is not 'some people say x and other people say y,' but 'some people say x because, well, they do, while other people say y because of all of these things that have actually happened. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources (like the Boston Globe above) that point out that the movement labels itself as one about ethics, in the same breath as pointing out the issues about harassment. That is sufficient for our purposes in writing neutrally. The problem is , you are trying to pass judgement in WP's voice and we absolutely cannot do that. We will continue to write about the GG movement in a neutral tone, as required by NPOV. It won't be balanced, but that's different from neutral. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop putting words in my mouth. For the umpteenth time, I am not 'trying to pass judgement in WP's voice.' The sources we have are enough for us to say, as the sources do, that some gamergaters claim that gamergate is about ethics. It is not enough to justify saying, in wikipeida's voice, that 'gamergate is a controversy about ethics.' Saying that it is, when our sources don't really support that, is not 'writing neutrally.' "Neutrality" is not a synonym for 'both sides have points!' -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Summarizing false allegations in the lede

@Strongjam: I'm reading the WaPo source cited in the body of the article which states that it was the ex-boyfriend who was "implying that she had traded sex for positive reviews" and "accusing Quinn of having an affair with a writer for a games Web site that had reported on Depression Quest. Can you clarify your objection to the rephrasing and/or suggest a way of rephrasing the sentence that accurately conveys the nature of the accusations and which parts were true/false? (true: relationship with Grayson, false: any connection to any review whatsoever) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure the best way to phrase it. He did allege relationship with Grayson, the connection to reviews isn't there though. It's been brought up quite a bit on the talk page. We just have to be sure to word it such that it's clear he made public allegations of a romantic relationship and this led to false claims that she received positive coverage because of that relationship. -- Strongjam (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Maybe something like this "The controversy began in August 2014 when indie game developer Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend alleged she had a romantic relationship with a journalist for the video game news site Kotaku. This led to harassment of Quinn and false claims that the relationship led to positive coverage; charges refuted by the web site." Not sure if that's really reads any better. -- Strongjam (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Implemented with minor changes, let's see if it sticks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks! Strongjam (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

To expand on my revert. His post had allegations of a romantic relationship, but did not allege anything more then that. Others went on to add those extra claims. We need to be careful attributing the allegations. Also, I realize my edit summary says 'did'. That is a typo, is it possible to update edit summarys? -- Strongjam (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

What is key is that while his charges (which he did clarify later) did not allude or infer professional impropriety, others took that as the charge of impropriety. Basically, from an antiGG POV, while venting about relationships in that manner is questionable, he himself did not infer COI - that what others read into it ( in addition to other things more personably about Quinn but outside the scope/BLP aspects of this article). --MASEM (t) 19:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Um... is there going to be any expansion of the Newsweek citation?

http://www.newsweek.com/gamergate-about-media-ethics-or-harassing-women-harassment-data-show-279736

Merely how many people are using the hashtag is not even what the cited article is discussing. The main topic of the article is about almost something else entirely. Sookenon (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably usable to expand on the "Debate over legitimacy of ethics concerns" section. Any suggestions on what to add? -- Strongjam (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I've added what I believe a fairly neutral treatment of this article (now that they explained they only looked at a fraction of the data) to reflect the "its about harassment, not ethics" point they make. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

+1 Decent enough summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sookenon (talk • contribs) 06:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Might not hurt to include the following link as a counter to Newsweek's data. https://medium.com/@cainejw/a-statistical-analysis-of-gamergate-utilizing-newsweek-data-e2bada31ea7e The blog poster utilizes some rather complex statistical analysis, and comes to a conclusion opposite what Newsweek did. Kitsunedawn (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Last paragraph in the lead

In the last paragraph of the lead, we say:

“This move to recognize games as art prompted opposition from traditional "hardcore" gamers who view games primarily as a form of entertainment. The resulting culture war has led to harassment of female figures in the gaming industry. “

Can we attribute this to someone? “Hardcore gamers” isn't really a group that's come forward to explicitly state their views on anything. It's kind of a self described title. I was trying some minor cleaning of the lead, but wasn't sure what to do with the last few statements since they're broad and seem to be point-blank stating that hardcore gamers don't view their games as art and that a culture war is the root behind the harassment.YellowSandals (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It was attributed before nearly every single reference was removed from the lede. Just go back into the article's history and find it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, 99% confident we can find a source if pressured. Likely in the Background section if we need an explicit one. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I mean can we change it to establish who said this? It reads as a theory or opinion, so we should establish who is proposing that hardcore gamers don't view their games as art. I've seen numerous game reviewers discuss the concept of games as art, and it was a major source of contention when Roger Ebert claimed games could never be art. The "games are art" thing has been a debate going on for... I don't know - years, probably. Ever since they've started to become more story-based and cinematic. Roger Ebert first said that some time in 2007 or so. YellowSandals (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, regarding the "female indie video game developer" thing - when you use a bunch of conjunctive adjectives like that, the grammar gets easier to stumble over because the reader also needs to know they're all conjunctive. Originally I shortened it to "female game developer" because the grammar rules are less of a headache that way. YellowSandals (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Please only add cites in the lede for stuff that really needs it per WP:CITELEAD. Removing all of them gives us a good baseline. We should really only have 1-2 claims in the lede which are cited there. Protonk (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There is only one actual cite in the lede needed - that's the direct quote. We should make sure where we id "hardcore" gamers objecting to the changing market that that is well sourced (it should be already), but I really don't think we need it in the lead. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason NOT to have citations in the lead WP:CITELEAD clearly identifies that "controversial" material should be cited. EVERYTHING about gamergate is "controversial" and the misguided removal then leads to ADDITIONAL meaningless "discussions" like this. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a balance "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". As long as a reader can quickly scan through the article and find the sections with the challenged material, we should do that. However, if there an insistence to add sources, can we please use singular ones to the most recent, mainstream, summary-type articles to avoid twenty zillion refs in a row for a single point? --MASEM (t) 22:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ehhh, no. Citing everything in the lede because everything is controversial is pointless. We should cite especially controversial things and keep the lede readable. Let's not take an actually good re-write of the lede and slowly layer on the same crap that got us to that unreadable mess of a lead in the first place. As evidenced by the volume of this talk page, we're not likely to mollify someone about a controversial statement in the lede by putting a superscripted number after it, so let's not make the lede worse by attempting to do so. Protonk (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

At least with the articles I write, I tend to take the approach that for the lede, quotes should always be cited, and any other statement should either be cited directly or included in the body, with a citation there. It works for me and my reviewers, at least. Ironholds (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the BOLD rewrite without citations in the lead because in addition to the problem of making claims that are not easily verified by content and sources in the body gives WAY to much validity to the gamergaters self promotional claims while minimizing the third party analysis that contradicts the assertions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

BULLSHIT. All claims are verifyible from articles over the last few days. Three sentences out of about 12-15 is not an overwelming amount given that a fair number of sources try to give some creditable aspects of the gamegate movement. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems like your changes do nothing other than add a partisan tone and set back some of the readability cleaning the lead just recently had. I know we often discuss it here, but do we have any sources calling Gamergate, "leaderless, disorganized"? There is some organization, or else the consumer revolt aspect of the movement wouldn't be making any ground. I think the more concise word you're looking for is "decentralized". YellowSandals (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a concise paraphrase of the significant comments and criticisms laid by external sources about the movement's inability to come up with a coherent, unified manifesto or to seriously disavow the harassment under its name. The Washington Post calls it "leaderless" directly. New York magazine says "You guys refuse to appoint a leader or write up a platform or really do any of the things real-life, adult “movements” do." Slate says "Even Gamergate’s own members can’t stop their movement, since there’s no central authority." There are others, but here's three. If you have a better, concise way of articulating this issue, let's hear it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind - those are opinions and observations, but we cannot site as a fact that GG is leaderless, because it hasn't been proven one way or another. We do let press opinion (whom are involved in this) dictate the facts. We certainly can state they see GG as leaderless, and thus having no obvious message, just not state the leaderless aspect in WP's voice. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Who is the leader? Show one source to contradict the multiple that have cited it as leaderless. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

"not being able to cite who leader is" != "not having a leader". --MASEM (t) 15:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

and so again, you are attempting to put forth that we ignore multiple reliable sources because ..... ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Did I say anything about throwing out RSes? We can site that they believe that GG is leaderless and leading to why no one seems to be taking them seriously, that's a strong proportion of sources that back that. We just cannot take the step to say, in WP's voice, GG has no leader. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:ASSERT nope, they are not "mere opinions" and we do not present them as such particularly when there is no evidence or reliable sources to the contrary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Masem, what source specifically would you consider reliable for this claim? Kaciemonster (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

We could just state it as an opinion held, it's considered fine to do that in the lede.Halfhat (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:ASSERT Nope. We dont mollify as "opinion" what has been stated as fact by multiple reliable sources with NO reliable sources making any claim the otherwise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The sources are not stating it as fact, they are giving their impression of the leaderless as an opinion. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: @Masem: How about "With no clear leader or organization the movement has hitherto been unwilling or unable to distance itself from continued harassment."? If I was really bold I would go with this since since it avoids speculating on motives "With no clear leader or organization the movement has been unable to distance itself from continued harassment." -- Strongjam (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

On re-read I'm not sure if I like the second one anymore. "Unable" without "unwilling" gives the impression an attempt was made. Maybe just "... has not distanced ..."? I'm not married to it though. -- Strongjam (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And again we're back to debating over how to delicately add in nonsense that shouldn't even be presented this way. It's a decentralized movement, yes, but it's about time we stop adding in comments and other frustrating elements that do nothing but create controversy and raise questions. The lead was impartial, useful, and didn't raise any questions before. Now it's changed because it "gave Gamergate too much credit", and we're quibbling over the nuances of the phrasing because there's no sensible way to write a balanced article in this manner. YellowSandals (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Anil Dash-Cernovich paragraph

So Ryulong has used two sources, only one of which even gives the matter much attention and is a weak source at that, to insert a whole paragraph accusing a named person of bribery. There are various issues of WP:UNDUE, WP:TROLL, and WP:POINT in play, but I think I need only point to the section he added it to give you an idea of what is so horribly wrong with what was added.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Bribery is not a criminal offense. I don't know where else in the article it fits because you saw fit to remove it from the "harassment" section. Perhaps it's more related to the "Operation Baby Seal" section where it's since been moved. TechCrunch does vaguely refer to it, but then again if the extremely vague mentions of Milo Yiannopoulos being sent a syringe are allowed, then this should be just as fine.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It's using weak sources (TechCrunch and SpinMedia) and seems very tangiently to the broader situation. And bribery is still a BLP issue, so we'd need better sources for this. It should be removed. (And I agree the milo/syringe thing too is unnecessary) --MASEM (t) 04:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The author of the Death and Taxes piece compared it to a bribe and that is what we are quoting.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And? Again, we're still talking about a BLP claim from weak RSes, so should be removed. --MASEM (t) 04:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If we drop this neutrally written paragraph that one claim about "bribery" being a BLP violation then the even more weakly sourced sentence on Milo's syringe goes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Masem, it is a single sentence backed by three different sources. Not even remotely an issue and just noting one of numerous reliably-sourced instances of people who support GamerGate being subject to harassment. Do not even indulge him on this point.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Those "three different sources" consist of spending a sentence apiece each on two of them going "Update: Milo Yiannopoulos said he got a syringe in the mail" and the third going "Milo got sent this syringe". And Milo is not exactly a reputable source.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for immediately proving how this is just WP:POINT garbage. You do know that the stuff about Milo is one fucking sentence long right? Your response to using multiple stronger sources to back a single sentence about someone reporting an instance of harassment is to use a much weaker source to shove in an entire paragraph attacking a named individual and bluntly accusing him of bribery. The fact you even think this shit is equivalent demonstrates pretty clearly why you should not be allowed anywhere near this page.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Those sources are weak. There is one sentence dedicated to the syringe in the 3 sources being cited. That's a minor thing. This is something someone felt the need to write a whole article about on a non-gaming website. Bribery is not a criminal offense no matter how you try to spin this as a BLP violaton as was done yesterday with the Reddit admins on BuzzFeed. BLP does not say "never write bad things about living people". It says "make sure it meets WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR" and that's exactly the case here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

[32].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ssssssstttttttrrrrrrreeeeetttttttcccccchhhhhh. The law you cite prohibits bribing an employee to damage or defraud the business they work for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not concerned with whether a poorly-sourced allegation of criminal conduct has merit. The fact is that the term "bribe" does carry implications of illegality under California law.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not an allegation of criminal conduct. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I moved it to the section on Gawker/Operation Baby Seal, as the demands were made related to that issue.

I think it's quite obvious why it's relevant — a prominent GamerGate supporter (and please none of this "he doesn't represent GamerGate" garbage) basically tried to set up a prominent blogger in a "have you stopped beating your wife" situation, and that blogger stood his ground and called him out on it. There is no BLP issue here; what Cernovich said is sourced and verifiable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There are also these claims made by Dash, but I'm not sure if they're worth adding.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And? That's one person. This is similar to the admins of KIA situation again. Yes, stupid, non-sensical action, but this type of thing (as well as the Milo thing) is petty issues that are minor points in the larger narrative that we should be focusing on. --MASEM (t) 04:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the act of someone acting as a frontman of GamerGate doing nothing but harassing someone who had nothing to do with GamerGate that he apparently had a prior dispute with. It's as related as Milo's discarded syringe.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You and the others have been pushing the argument that there is no frontman to GG as supported by sources being a leaderless group, so saying that now is a hypocritical argument. It is a minor point in the whole argument, as is the KIA mod aspects, the Milo/Synringe thing, and probably a handful of other things on both sides of the issue. --MASEM (t) 04:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Cernovich makes himself out to be a frontman or talking head just like Yiannopoulos does. The movement is nebulous enough that these people get to say they're the leader and be believed by the public. If this is removed then every single other peripheral and poorly sourced crap gets thrown out of the article as well. But not because of the vague claims that it violates BLP, which it clearly does not as this was multiple editors disagreeing with TDA.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It's very interesting how the article includes several completely-anonymous purported GamerGate supporters claiming to be victims of harssment, but you rush to remove actual, named and sourced discussion of harassment by a named GamerGate supporter.

You can't keep using the "that's one person" excuse, Masem. That is literally pulling a no true Scotsman. Either GamerGate is a movement or it's not. If it's a movement, actions by its supporters are relevant to the movement and will reflect on the movement. If it's not a movement, time to remove everything that calls it a movement, and it's back to being a bunch of random people incoherently tweeting things with a hashtag. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

100% WRONG. Forcing the question "Is it a movement or not" is trying to have WP take a side on this article and WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT. We cannot be apologetic to either side, nor can we be in agreement with any side. We have to ride the middle line of NEUTRALITY (which is not the same as balance). We can cite all the predominance of sources in the media to explain that the media hates gamergate, but not one ounce of that can be in the WP voice or tone; similarly, we can cite the barely measurable number of sources that try to explain proGG in a good light, but we cannot apologize for the harassment that some of their members did. There is a very clean line that is right in neutral territory that we can do, but too many editors are so focused that "GG is bad because harassment" that we are verving off this line. We absolutely cannot play that card, just as we cannot play the card of the claimed SPAs that want this to be all super proGG positive. We can call it a movement and not a movement at the same time because the bulk of that statement is riding on opinions, not fact: GG is a self-described movement, whose motives are questioned by the press. That is a completely sourcable, neutral characterization, neither positive or negative towards either side. That's the language we need to keep heading towards. That's what is demanded by NPOV (again, remember I'm not talking balance, I'm talking neutrality). The article on Scientology provides a template of what we should be trying to do here because it is about a group that is near universally disliked including allegations of illegal operations (money-taking), yet we write about it in WP's voice completely neutrally neither giving it too much praise or condemnation without giving the source.

Following this path, the end article is certainly not going to paint the GG side in a very positive light due to the press, but it not because we've said that GG is bad in WP's voice, it is because we've sourced just enough press pieces to make it clear. It's also going the few bits of redeeming qualities (far outweighed by the criticisms) that are present in some sources, like GG trying to police itself, etc. All of that would be neutral, not try to lead the reader to a conclusion by WP's voice (though they will likely have it clear from the press sources.) It's not hard, everyone (established and SPAs) just have to drop their bias at the door before editing here and keep to the absolutely neutral line. --MASEM (t) 04:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And when specific named supporters of that movement make actions that are criticized in the media and linked to the movement at large, we can and will discuss those people's actions in the context of the movement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If they are noted by significant RSes. And that same sentiment also applies to other named people. Quinn, Wu, etc. - their names aren't going anywhere, but the stuff above, and the stuff with Milo, and probably a few other things on both sides can be lost to improve our sourcing and keep our neutrality better. --MASEM (t) 05:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

TechCrunch is a pretty significant RS and DeathAndTaxes is part of SpinMedia, an established publishing/media organization. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Spinmedia operates media projects that would not meet our criteria for reliability with DeathAndTaxes being apparently weak in that department since it looks like they have basically four editors who do most of the writing and maybe a handful of writers who contribute infrequently to the site. TechCrunch does not even mention Cernovich by name.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

CinemaBlend has five named editors (and a "creative director") but you don't have any problem citing them twice. The Inquisitr doesn't even list its staff. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

They list six editors, and this does not include assistant editors and a staff of professional writers who are not listed on that page. It is a very different situation. There is no clear indication that DeathAndTaxes has the same level of professional staffing given that most of the pieces seem to be written by the four editors. Listing staff in a public area of the site is not inherently an issue of reliability as many sites do not list their entire staff on a single page, especially large outlets for obvious reasons. Inquisitr has a large staff of writers, most with professional journalistic experience, but they do not detail that anywhere. My statement is based off having looked at the staff page for DeathAndTaxes and noticing the four editors seem to author the majority of the pieces on the site.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, most outlets do list at least their primary editorial staff somewhere. The fact that The Inquisitr doesn't list *any* named staff *anywhere* is a red flag. Your assertion that most have "professional journalistic experience" is unsupported. It appears to be a news aggregator with at best no more claim to reliability than BuzzFeed, which you just yesterday spent a bunch of words here arguing we can't use. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This is like saying when a Muslim person beheads a person in Nebraska, that represents all Muslims. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?Sy9045 (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

No, your analogy fails. Being Muslim is being part of a religion and being a supporter of GamerGate is being part of a specific ideological group. This is more like when an IRA member killed someone in Northern Ireland, that represented all IRA members. Which, well, yeah, it kind of sort of did, in the eyes of everyone looking from the outside. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

What a ridiculous and false equivalency. The IRA is a terrorist group. It's debatable that GamerGate is even a group, and any harassment on some figure will not implicate everyone who supports GamerGate for that crime (unlike IRA members committing crimes). Are you saying that when a member of Occupy Wall Street raped or killed someone, that defined all members of Occupy Wall Street? Sy9045 (talk) 07:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so your equivalency of GamerGate and Muslims is valid but my equivalency of GamerGate and the IRA isn't? Yeah, that makes sense. Keepo

If someone robbed a bank while waving an Occupy Wall Street banner, it probably would have. A better comparison is the "black bloc" anarchists who used violence and confrontation in their protests — when they showed up at Occupy protests, it often reflected badly on Occupy and media coverage discussed that issue extensively. For that reason, many in Occupy made efforts to reject the black bloc, for fear that the movement would be tainted by association with violent anarchism as opposed to peaceful protest. No less than Jon Stewart weighed in and said "I know it's not all of you, but you will always be judged by your worst elements, and it's very tough to wrangle a leaderless movement." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The is just absurd. Are you seriously equating GamerGate supporters to terrorist groups? Did the people who threaten anti GG carry a pro GG flag when they made their threats? Do you not see how several pro GG members have condemned the harassment on those who are anti GG? The IRA is a terrorist group as defined by numerous countries and NGOs and every member will be implicated in any crime that the IRA carries out. The fact that you're even equating people who support GamerGate to the terroristic IRA is quite telling, shocking, and absurd all at the same time.Sy9045 (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You're getting awful high and mighty about comparisons for someone who started this conversation comparing GamerGate to Muslims beheading people. You compared GamerGate to a major world religion and are now faux-outraged that I'm comparing it to the anarchist groups which made Occupy Wall Street look bad. Quite.

It doesn't really matter that "several pro GG members have condemned the harassment" if it continues waving the GG flag. You don't seem to understand that the leaderlessness and disorganization of GG is a weakness, not a strength. If nobody can "speak" for GG, then everyone speaks for GG and there is literally no way of distinguishing one from the other. Who are you to say that this other person who commits harassment isn't really GG? The movement has no way of disassociating itself from the harassment and even if they did, it's basically too late anyway — the hashtag is permanently tainted by what's come before. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You are being so intellectually dishonest that I don't even know if I should waste my time responding to you anymore. Comparing what a few people do to stereotype an entire group is wrong. That is, using a few isolated examples of harassment to stereotype all GamerGate supporters is like using a few isolated examples of Muslims beheading people to stereotype all Muslims. It's also like using a few isolated examples of rape in Occupy Wall Street to represent all members of Occupy Wall Street. It's also like using a few Democratic or Republican DUI incidents and saying all Democrats or Republicans drink and drive. It is an absurd argument. Is that clear? Also your point that because there's no "leader", it's fair to stereotype everyone who supports GG from the actions of a few is so ridiculous and absurd that it doesn't even dignify a response.Sy9045 (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

No, actually, it's not. And stop reformatting my posts.

These aren't "isolated incidents," these are basically everything GG has ever done that's notable. When a movement has done effectively nothing but harass people out of their homes for false, specious reasons... yes, that movement is going to be publicly judged by those actions.

As any number of reliable sources have pointed out, when a "movement" has no leadership, no organization, no manifesto, no membership requirements... there is no way of separating anyone out of the movement. There is nobody in GG who can disavow acts committed in its name. Simply saying that "if they're harassing people, they're not in GG" is literally the no true Scotsman logical fallacy and is completely uncompelling and unconvincing to anyone who isn't already in the movement.

This is absolutely one of the reasons Occupy Wall Street petered out into nothingness. And it at least had *some* sort of shared manifesto, public assemblies for decision-making, etc. GG doesn't have any of that, and has the added disadvantages of being all online, effectively anonymous, began with false allegations and basically the only notable things it's ever done are harassment campaigns. But now we're into WP:NOTFORUM territory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, actually, it is.

Absurd argument that doesn't even dignify a response. Even Jimmy Wales knows there are legitimate gripes about gaming journalist collusion.

Stop stereotyping people. The vast majority of pro GG tweets are not harassment campaigns. Your biases are so apparent and you should quit editing.

And this is like saying because Occupy Wall Street has no leader, it's fair to pin one rape incident on every member of the group. Every member who associates with Occupy Wall Street is now a rapist according to you. The argument is ridiculous and incredibly absurd. I can't even believe I'm still responding to something so ridiculous.Sy9045 (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair or not, that's the way it works in the court of public opinion. I linked you half a dozen sources which specifically discuss how the black bloc movement tainted Occupy Wall Street and if you want more, there's plenty more. The "legitimate gripes" have yet to be articulated in any clear manner. Nobody outside the movement takes the idea that social criticism is "unethical" seriously. The movement has muddied the waters so much with harassment and threats that it's pretty much lost all credibility.

Your claim of bias clearly comes from an entirely-unbiased position, and I shall immediately and thoroughly ignore it. Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You told me not to reformat your posts, but you reformat mine. LOL, whatever. If a few Occupy Wall Street supporters rape, I don't stereotype all Occupy Wall Street members as rapists. In the same vein, if a few pro GG harass others, I wouldn't stereotype all GG supporters as harassers. That's not fair at all to the vast majority of people who support each group. You haven't even considered the opposition's arguments. How can you think you're objective when you stereotype all people who are pro GG as harassers? How is that even close to objective?Sy9045 (talk) 09:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

That's because you interspersed your posts into mine in a way that makes the discussion incoherent and impossible to follow.

I make no such stereotype and I've never said all pro-GGers are harassers. I've certainly considered the arguments, but none of them seem to make any sense to me. If you want to take a crack at explaining them with reliable sources, go for it. Let me just warn you that if you start with "Zoe Quinn slept with someone for reviews" you can just stop there and not waste time, because that shit's been debunked 80,000 times over. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Uhh, yeah you did. You painted pro GG supporters with a broad brush (see this line you wrote for example, "When a movement has done effectively nothing but harass people out of their homes..." and others) because it was "leaderless" and so every harassment incident reflects on every member of that group. I said that was absurd. I will give you the benefit of the doubt though since it seems you are more level headed now and aren't stereotyping anymore.Sy9045 (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I follow GamerGate everyday and this is the first time I even heard of this Dash guy, seems like another shameless attemp at attacking Cernovich, a person who has got in the nerves of some people opposed to GamerGate, even if it were to be included, dedicating an entire paragraph and including a picture (pictures are included only of Quinn and other really notable people like Felicia Day, Sommers, Baldwin) is pretty ridiculous Loganmac (talk) 07:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This happened more than a week ago. Cernovich is barely mentioned on this page as it is and there was never any "attack" on him. And free photos are free photos. If we had free screenshots of video games in question they would be plastered all over this. No one objected to my proposal days ago. Just now when TDA suddenly decided that the word "bribe" constituted a BLP violation (which it does not) and then attacked the sources (which he said he was not in the first place) when there's no feasible BLP violation then there's an issue. Dash said that Cernovich has been stalking him for a year and then when Cernovich becomes Mr. GamerGate he attacks Dash, someone who had not said anything about GamerGate, because now this one person is being shown in a bad light when that's how the sources are showing him, then we have to put on the kid gloves? This is ridiculous. It's something relevant to cover that is not a BLP violation, much like everything in that Buzzfeed article yesterday was not a BLP violation regardless if some nobody mod on a forum got doxxed when no one acknowledges that doxxing. This is only an issue when raised by editors who have done nothing on Wikipedia except to contravene reliable sources' presentation of GamerGate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Accusations of bribery certainly falls within BLP - it's implicating a moral crime about an individual, so if it is only backed by weak sources, it should not be included. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Covertly bribing someone to get something you want might be described as a 'moral crime.' But publicly declaring that you will do X if someone else does Y is a 'bribe' in only the loosest sense. Agreement to the arrangement would not in and of itself be considered malfeasance on either party's part by any reasonable individual: it's only noteworthy because of the twitter backlash when Dash declined, and noting that someone offered a donation in exchange for a message of support is not something that could be considered potentially libelous by any reasonable person. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• I highly recommend you take this issue to WP:BLP/N and let uninvolved editors sort it out. And don't swamp the B:PN discussion with your own opinions, let them discuss and if they like they can read all your opinions as presented here. And stop the edit warring, if there's a clear BLP issue, take it to a noticeboard or an admin with clear, unbiased evidence. Dreadstar ☥ 07:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of content that violates BLP is exempt from 3RR. The fact that you blocked TDA (even for a few minutes) for doing such in interest of BLP is concerning. Tutelary (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

As WP:3RR says, "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." and that if the reverting editor is claiming exemption to make it clear in the edit summary and/or talk page. If any of the reverting editors have serious issue with this content it would probably be more productive to take it to the WP:BLPN instead. As suggested by the WP:3RR. -- Strongjam (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think several of you here are getting a little too emotionally involved in the topic. Remember, WP's polices require that we don't take one side or the other. You have to be able to take a step back and try to objectively understand the stance by all sides of the issue, and write the article in a way that doesn't choose which side is right. Can you all do that? Cla68 (talk) 09:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated and unproven assertions about BLP are absolutely BLP violations and even if you believe they're not, it's up to you to get consensus for the edit, not continually edit war it back in. The fact of the matter that it's casting negative assertions of a BLP--even implicating that that person did a crime absolutely runs afoul of BLP. Do not restore. Tutelary (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Even ignoring BLP concerns that was horribly written, full of weasel words. Halfhat (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

what weasel words? What BLP concerns? There is nothing wrong with the current incarnation of the paragraph. BLP only says that content must be verifiable, neutrally written, and not original research. It does not forbid us from writing content that could be interpreted as negative. There is no reason to remove this one paragraph from the page. It does nothing but identify one person who has been involved in Gamergate and not only harassed Dash but the other writer discussed elsewhere on the page, unless that was removed too. There is absolutely no reason for this to not be on the article other than everybody who is very clearly biased in the favor of the movement having an issue with one of the movement's outspoken "heroes" being vaguely maligned. I am tired of this nonsense. No one has raised one valid and policy supported concern as to why this paragraph must have been removed constantly.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Asserting that someone has done something criminally or that another person has harassed another in any context is a BLP violation. "There's no reason to remove this paragraph" is absolutely misleading. The reason that this BLP violation absolutely should be excluded is a matter of it casting negative aspersions against a living person. The fact that you are repeating the BLP violations in this talk page is unacceptable. Tutelary (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There are no assertions of criminal misconduct in any part of the paragraph and "harassment" and "bullying" are both used by the sources. You have no foundation to accuse me of violating BLP. BLP does not say "do not write bad things about people". It says "make sure whatever you add about living people meets WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR". Both TechCrunch and Death and Taxes verify that Anil Dash was targetted or no reason by Mike Cernovich who offered $1000 to Dash to talk shit about Gawker and when he refused he was harassed by Cernovich and several anon GamerGaters over it. The Death and Taxes piece calls it bullying and describes the act as a "bribe". You are making an extreme leap that the description of the act as a "bribe" constitutes an accusation of criminal behavior as the only time a "bribe" is considered as such, if we're using TDA's law example, as an illegal act between an employer and employee and not between two bloggers on the Internet over an offer for a charitable donation in public on Twitter for everyone to see and comment on rather than the private nature that is a criminal bribe. And on BLPN your new proclamation that "bullying" constitutes a crime in certain statutes is an equally as vague stretch to find an excuse to have this content removed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

In the first source (TechCrunch) Mike Cernovich is not even mentioned in any case. And I thought I saw a single mention in a link to another article (storify) but is not on the site but does explicitly mention Mike. But it's self published unambiguously. (Storify is, not TechCrunch) So that's original research from to connect him to it in TechCrunch because he's not mentioned explicitly in their article, and the scrutiny of BLP is absolutely not in favor of using that source that doesn't even make mention of him explicitly a violation of BLP. Then we're down to one source. Death and Taxes Magazine. I decided to dig a bit further to the 'about' sections which redirected to SpinMedia attempting to find editorial control, so I just read their terms instead. What it states The site which you linked from (the “Site”) provides a photo and video hosting/blogging service, amongst other things, to you (the “Service(s)”), subject to the following Terms of Service (“TOS”), which may be updated from time to time without notice to you. They blatantly also state they don't control the content. We do not control the Content posted via the Service and, as such, do not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content. (under user conduct) So Death and Taxes is self published and is in effect not a reliable source. Combine this with the fact that Bullying is a crime in several states, Harassment is in all 50, and Bribery is a crime when only one self published source describes anything about it is a full triple whammy in terms of BLP violations. It's not acceptable. Tutelary (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The TechCrunch piece is used to corroborate the fact that Anil Dash was harassed by GamerGate supporters out of nowhere. It is not being used to discuss anything regarding Mike Cernovich, other than my attempt to say that the harassment of Dash by GamerGate supporters, which just happens to include Cernovich, was evidence of trolling taking over. So that does not affect anything. The article on Death and Taxes is not written by some unknown writer. It is an artcle written by a member of the Death and Taxes staff. Your claims that "bullying", "bribery", and "harassment" are considered crimes and therefore this is not allowed under BLP is a stretch and a half.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Didn't you just see ahead of me that Death and Taxes is a self published source? Tutelary (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I am disputing your claim that Death and Taxes a self-published source. Being anal about the TOS of a website you disagree with is remarkably similar to the tactics taken by GamerGate recently.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, SpinMedia (which Death and Taxes is an affiliated of) has stated in their terms that they have no control over the content posted on the service and therefore have no obligations towards content quality. Additionally, anybody can call themselves a 'Staff Editor' and appear to be reliable, but looking at Linked in page, she specializes in 'Blogging' and 'copy editing'. It's a questionable source even coming from the 'Staff editor' of a staff of 4 for Death and Taxes. It's still unacceptable for a RS. Your claims that "bullying", "bribery", and "harassment" are considered crimes and therefore this is not allowed under BLP is a stretch and a half Nah, see WP:BLPCRIME. Tutelary (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

So that simply removes any blame or responsibility on behalf of SpinMedia and leaves it in the hands of Death and Taxes' editorial team. And no one is being accused of any crime in this. You are making a massive assumption on this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Tell me, do you not consider 'Bullying', 'Harassment', and 'Bribery' to be crimes? They absolutely are and people have been convicted for them. Saying a living person has done any of them by a manner of saying that 'X said Y was a crime and Y just did X' is strongly implying that without a conviction that the person did a crime. That is a BLP violation, per BLPCRIME. Tutelary (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I have not been living in the United States for two years so I am not personally up to speed on criminal statutes on any basis. Bullying and harassment have been central to the debate for months now. And bribery is not being described as a crime in the context of this article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

BLP does not have to be criminal thing - if it even implicates some negative connotation about the person, that can be a BLP Violation (for example, calling a person as homosexual without any evidence). Claiming bribery would fit within that. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

BLP does not say "don't write bad things about people". It says "anything added anywhere on Wikipedia about living people must meet WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR" and in this case we have a music & lifestyle magazine's staff editor writing about GamerGate, pointing out that Mike Cernovich targetted Anil Dash out of nowhere and offered to give $1000 to a charity of Dash's choosing if and only if Dash talked shit about Gawker. The author in the D+T piece called it a "bribe" which is in itself not an accusation of criminal misconduct as The Devil's Advocate has alleged, even when the word "bribe" was found nowhere in NorthBySouthBaranof's rewritten piece. And we have Tutelary tearing apart SpinMedia's terms of service to discredit D+T through whatever loophole that is she's talking about.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Salon's response to David Auerbach's piece

This is basically Salon's response to the Auerbach piece:

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/01/gamergates_infuriating_myth_why_searching_for_common_ground_is_a_big_mistake/

It also in general touches on the problems of trying to find a middle ground in situations such as these, according to the author.

Which section would best fit the "middle ground/common ground" argument? Sookenon (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Likely under Media Response. There's a few older sources that describe other reporting difficulties that could go there too. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong has already contributed something good enough while I was trying to come up with a draft. In that case, I've also added a direct quote. Sookenon (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The full quote is a bit much.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

We should include details from Auerbach's piece there if we are going to be adding a response.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

New article by Cathy Young (Reason.com)

Another great article by Cathy Young, too many quotes to list them here:

Misandry in the GamerGate Controversy

Racuce (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Young's piece is the only one that alleges misandry.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Contains links to unverifiable screencaps of an anonymous blogger who makes BLP-violating accusations against Zoe Quinn. If it's a BLP violation to include named sources that make specific allegations against specific named GamerGate supporters, this must be treated as an even more flagrant BLP violation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Dude, we have multiple unquestionably reliable sources that link directly to the Zoe post. Arguing that we should somehow not link to a piece in Reason by a professional journalist because of a single link in the piece to a screen cap is just ridiculous. Of course, judging from your last mark it is clear this is more WP:POINT arguing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It may be because Young is treating it as fact when everyone else discounts it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read the article. I am not referring to Gjoni's post, which is not anonymous and has been widely reported. I am referring to Young's approving discussion and screencaps of a completely-anonymous third-party blogger ("KC Vidya") making different accusations that have not been reported by any other reliable sources.

Sauce for the goose and gander, TDA. For the last two days you've been crying BLP over two separate statements by identifiable journalists published in at-least-arguably-reliable-sources that are critical of identifiable GamerGate supporters. It's interesting to see how quickly you reject BLP concerns about statements by completely anonymous unverifiable bloggers when it suits your purposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I know exactly what you were talking about. This is not comparable because you are objecting to the article above containing links to screencaps of some blog post, whereas I am objecting to actual content added to this page.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I specifically rewrote the section to omit the claim of bribery and you still reverted it citing BLP issues. So no, it's perfectly comparable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no BLP issue with the Young piece. She's not presenting KC's claims as fact. Cathy Young is a notable writer, and Reason is a reliable source. - hahnchen 21:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Even linking to those claims constitutes a violation, as they are anonymous unverifiable accusations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not how BLP works. Reliable sources can cite unreliable ones. One of The Daily Dot's pieces with an access date of September 2nd linked to the tumblr (since taken down) directly.[33] - hahnchen 22:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Correct. We leave it to the RS to decide whether or not to include unreliable sources. If they choose to include them, it's open for use here (assuming due weight, etc.). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that opinion column is dangerously skirting the line of libel by repeating those accusations in the way it does, and when we have shittons of opinion on the subject already we don't really need to stoop to using this just because it happens to be overtly pro-Gamergate. At this point we should probably be restricting opinion sources on the subject to extremely high profile ones, or to perspectives that have been covered or at least referenced in independent reliable news sources: the recent BBC news article that published Quinn's opinions on gamergate, for example. We need to develop some sort of standard metric by which opinions are included or excluded other than 'I like what this one says.' Everyone has an opinion; that doesn't mean that everyone's who can get their opinion published somewhere, somehow needs to be included in this article. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Young's article (I particularly like the "I verified all this at knowyourmeme.com" line) is like the playground retort of "no, YOU are". Thankfully we have WP:REDFLAG to cover situations of a single opinion writer making extraordinary claims. Tarc (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I've reached a point where this talk page starts to amuse me more than concern me. Which part of the article is extraordinary? We have other sources that corroborate with the things she's saying. It's not like she's revealing that Gamergate was run by ghosts this entire time. I assume the "extraordinary" part is when she says that an irrational hatred of women doesn't form mobs that battle with one another for months on end. But this is why I find it amusing: somebody says, "Maybe these people aren't motivated by evil. Maybe it's because of something," and the response is, "Impossible! We've factually proven it's evil at hand! What an extraordinary claim!"

Goodness, guys. Look, I don't think Cathy knows what Gamergate wants for sure, and in fact she even says that in her article. However, we're getting enough of these that we could potentially remark on some of the more consistent theories and attribute them to the points of view of these journalists or periodicals. YellowSandals (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, the article takes a pretty passive tone. It reads in favor of Gamergate, with a few caveats about where and how they respond to various issues. I'm not actually seeing a case of libel, since she's reporting what people have said or posted - libel is when a reporter publishes an outright defamatory lie, which is not what this article does. Basically, she seems to be commenting on how Gamergate could have come about if one doesn't assume that "misogyny" conveniently explains everything. The thing to note about this article is that it's another that adds some substance to the Gamergate side of the controversy. Something that attempts to explain what's going on through pro-GG eyes. I think we've now developed a small collection of articles that say heavy-handed moral politics have some involvement with this thing. YellowSandals (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Syringe & other harassment

Syringe

I'm making a new thread on this so it can be free of all of the previous nonsense.

Milo Yiannopoulos's tweet about being sent a syringe is reported in single sentences in everything that was used to cite it. Here's what is used to cite it

• Kotaku: "[UPDATE: It should be noted that Gamergate people have complained of harassment as well. The pro-Gamergate reporter Milo Yiannopoulos, for example, Tweeted a photo several weeks ago of a syringe with fluid in it, presumably mailed to him by someone who dislikes him or his work. He mostly appeared to laugh it off.]"
• TechCrunch: "[Since I wrote my initial draft, reports have emerged of increasingly worrying attacks on GamerGate supporters. A friendly reporter had a suspicious syringe sent to his house...."
• Reason.com: "Yiannopoulous also received a jiffy bag in the mail containing a syringe."

This is literally all there is out there regarding this syringe. A syringe he threw out rather than give to the police to examine. This is a non-issue and as such I've removed it from the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You were just trying to write an entire paragraph based on a single source, yet you're attempting to throw out 3 very good reliable sources to demonstrate a sentence in its due weight. That's a double standard. It achieved its due weight and as such deserves a place in the article. If this notion of due weight carries at least 3 sources = no mention at all, I'll be glad to be the one balancing it. Tutelary (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem very intent on throwing a hissy fit on this article over a single fucking sentence. Do you really not recognize the distinction between the massive content additions you are making based off a single source and a single sentence backed by three sources? Those sources, mind you, are generally giving an overview of various issues in GamerGate and thus them all seeing fit to mention the syringe incident suggests it is warranted to mention it here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Both of you continually ignore my issues with the level of coverage the syringe has received in these three sources with the proclamation that the sources themselves are good and therefore anything that they have in them can be written about on this page. This is the same complete lack of understanding that has plagued this offsite. Again, the level of coverage of this non-event in three sources does not satisfy including it in the article. My issue is not with these three sources. I am not saying that these three sources are not reliable. I am saying that using them to support the syringe event is disingenuous when the quotes I've pulled above are all that these have to say about it. So, instead of attacking me for thinking that I think that Kotaku, TechCrunch, and Reason are not reliable sources (which again is not' what I'm saying here), comment on why the syringe needs to be mentioned on Wikipedia when it is an afterthought in two articles, a single sentence in one, and evidently not something that the target thought much of.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Rest of paragraph

Now onto the other citations in the paragraph.

• The Washington Post serves as suitable sourcing for the criticism and harassment sent to women as part of the #notyourshield tag and the one man leavng his home.
• Vice and Stuff suitably source the threat to Boogie's wife.
• The Inquisitr is a problem here. It misgenders someone it is reporting on. It alludes to a lot without supporting it (out of respect for those affected, allegedly) and there is nothing here about an editorial team and if we're calling out clickbait sites like BuzzFeed and Cracked as usual it has the same submission type process and Frye's previous writing experience for the Inquisitr is almost exclusively on WWE.

The paragraph needs to be rewritten to remove Frye's research, just like the Buzzfeed and Death and Taxes stuff has been challenged.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I cannot say much more about Inquisitr other than what I have already said. I have looked at the backgrounds of dozens of their writers and editors and found that the vast majority have degrees in journalism and/or professional journalistic or writing experience. The thing you do not seem to understand is that I was never arguing that BuzzFeed is unreliable as I do consider them reliable as a source. I argued that you were giving that one article undue weight, because you were adding a massive paragraph and treating their allegations as fact. You stomping around and hewing and crying is just POINTy behavior and Baranof is now engaging in the same. That you are engaging in such persistent disruption out of annoyance with the fact that we mention numerous instances of GamerGate supporters being harassed speaks volumes.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The sourcing to support this content is minimal in the sources cited and barely being touched upon by more reliable sources. Death and Taxes is gone. Buzzfeed is gone. I removed the paragraph I wrote that I found on The Frisky is gone now too because it would probably fall under the same "SpinMedia's Terms of Service" explanation. Frye's experience on The Inquisitr is reporting on pro-wrestling and not on video games or other culture pieces. Boogie's stuff can say. The stuff Tsukayama reported on can stay. Frye's misgendering of someone he's reported on and the various other claims he's making are only reported by him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Buzzfeed has actually been restored by Protonk in this edit for 'Breaks existing refs. Also no consensus that BF's news side is unreliable'. Also does an article having a mistake mean we can't use it? I also sent them a contact for some specifics on their structure of editorial control, and am still researching that bit. Tutelary (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I was more referring to the "KotakuInAction's mods mod these other boards" issue from the other day.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The "misgendering" claim you are making is false, because if you looked at the cited link you would see the twitlonger contains the same name used in the Inquisitr piece. Your claim about him only writing about wrestling is so demonstrably false it is hilarious because in like ten seconds of looking at his other writing credits it is clear his work for Inquisitr extends well beyond wrestling. You aren't even trying anymore. We should roll back to this revision, because there is too much POINTy quibbling going on right now. Only constructive change was correcting "Gatergate" in the lede to "GamerGate" while the rest just needs to be undone.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking into that person's profile shows they wish to be called "Alexandra" but they obviously still have to go by "Alexander" in their public life. But that is perhaps looking too much into it. The issue still stands that Frye's coverage is the only coverage of a lot of these matters. The claims of being threated to be outed as transgender, the claims that jobs were lost, the claims that business was lost, etc. Tsukayama's piece for The Washington Post and the piece on Vice are stronger claims that support various other statements in the paragraph.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Those claims cited to Inquisitr are exactly two sentences and one isn't even very long. You again seem incapable of recognizing the distinction between such modest content and what you have been doing in response.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, since you mention Vice, you may want to look a little closer there, because it also mentions the syringe incident.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

"I’m no fan of pro-GG journalist Milo Yiannopoulos, for example, but this is pretty fucked up." did not show up when I began searching "syringe" but that's just another "strong" source making a passing mention of this event in the long run of things. Four websites saying "oh yeah, this happened" in their larger discussions on the problems at hand does not in my opinion qualify for coverage.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I really don't get why we should be asking him persmission every single time a new subject is made on the talk page. Taking out the syringe threat mention when there are 3 articles on previously considered "reliable" sources, and when even more sources cite harassment to proGG is ridiculous Loganmac (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You haven't read my arguments. I am not arguing against the reliability of these sources as is constantly accused of me. I am arguing that single sentences in four different places do not support that the syringe is something of note for this article. Read my arguments for once instead of dismissing me as being "anti-GG" in your eyes. This is bordering on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory considering I have to insist this fact every time I question why the syringe has to be mentioned here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead with my plan to undo a lot of the POINTy editing that took place during this dispute. There are specific issues with the material Ryulong has been adding to this article and there are specific issues with the source DeathAndTaxes and these are not similar issues to those alleged with the material or sources being removed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You just blanket reverted a lot of stuff. Death and Taxes' piece is gone. I removed a similar section from another SpinMedia blog that you restored. Stop accusing me of violating WP:POINT.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I reverted TDA's bullshit. It is time to take stand here in the name of reality and common fucking sense. There is no middle ground. Reliable sources have overwhelmingly come down against "ethics" as a motivator for Gamergate. It is about harassment of women for voicing opinions, originating from lies told by a jilted ex. It is about threats to commit mass murder if a woman speaks at a university, it is about the hundreds upon hundreds of messages send to Zoe Quinn's father threatening to rape and murder his daughter. Enough is fucking enough, this article will no longer be dictated by reddior man-children and their sycophants. Tarc (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This is WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Editors who disagree with you are absolutely not your enemy and you are instructed to thereby try collaborate them to pursue a better article. Labeling them insults doesn't do that. Tutelary (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You removed something from a different media property of the company that was basically opinion and it was one of several "well, if we can't accept this then I'll just remove this so nyah nyah" edits that you and Baranof engaged in over this dispute. If you insist on keeping it out then that is fine, but it was definitely a POINTy action.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

If it was as poorly sourced as the bribery piece then it goes out too. And the Inquisitr is not a reliable source. There is no reason to even bother mentinioning Milo's syringe because despite the fact there are four reliable sources citing it, it is such a minor aspect of the whole. But that wasn't removed yet. You need to stop edit warring to restore the pro-GG narrative and restoring content that's essentially saying "she hit me back".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if you'd quit it with the ideological 'pro gg narrative' stuff then maybe this article could have a chance at actually being neutral with no edit wars. Edits do not have an ideology. They have content. You should evaluate them based on the policies and guidelines, not because they show one person as more favorable or disfavorable as the others. Tutelary (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Frye's piece is not a reliable source. TDA is effectively erasing 8 hours of constructive editing. Just because he gets online now does not mean the two of you get to disrupt the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

TDA is reverting a bold series of edits by North. It doesn't become consensus merely because it's been a few hours. Trying to revert to an earlier series of content is not disruptive, it's contesting the other edit which has not achieved consensus. The Frye's piece I don't believe was used in that series of edits. Nonetheless, we've already covered this. Three RS is due weight for the content of the syringe. Tutelary (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof is not the only editor he is reverting. Picking one name you're opposed to in the 50 or so edits being blanket reverted does note excuse your actions to revert many constructive edits. And the syringe is a non-event being used by the GamerGate movement to go "look at what these fucking SJWs did to based Nero" (or whatever they call him).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, we can't build an encyclopedia if you're going to assume the people's motives of which are editing the page. Just please stop thinking that way. I can't assume that you're some shill hired by Gawker to procure the article, and you can't assume I'm some manchild reigned to minimize the harassment of women. Assumptions and crude humor aside, it's directly supported by [34], [35], and [36]. Given these three sources, it meets due weight. I don't want to rehash discussions at lower sections, so I'll just assume it's the same. It's verifiable, no original research is needed to extract the content, and it's adequate to the section. I will look forward to hearing your dissent. Tutelary (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It's an irrelevant footnote. The number of sources doesn't matter. It's the level of coverage in those sources. It doesn't matter how many news pieces you can find to link to this tweet and spend a sentence on it to make it relevant for the whole that is GamerGate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Why does the level of sourcing not matter? If there are a good amount of sources, we are required to add it per WP:DUE and its due weight. We can't decide to omit it if it's reliable sourcing, which it is. For comparison, Zoe Quinn's announcement of harassing was in tweets and see how it made the article. That also got a ton of news reporting on it, using the tweets and the like, not to the level of Milo, but it's the same basic thing. Tweets received media coverage (rs) and got put into the article. Tutelary (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It's completely the opposite of due weight. It's an afterthought on two pieces and a single sentence in two others. And Zoe Quinn is the reason this shit hit the fan. It's expected that there's a plethora of shit about what happened to her.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I was using it as an example to demonstrate that news pieces linked to her tweets as they did with Milo's, not to the necessity that Zoe Quinn wasn't central to it. Are you arguing that the basis of content divulged from those articles is not synonymous with the content added? Tutelary (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying that this event is being given undue weight considering the level of coverage it received compared to everything else out there that is GamerGate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You were earlier saying that they were only briefly mentioned in the articles that they inspired, and that may have been a concern that may have been remedied with discussion. But if you're saying that with the sources themselves, due weight is not met, I don't believe there's much to discuss if that. I don't think I can convince you otherwise. Tutelary (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This edit was done manually and the only true reverts in the mix were of you, North, and Countered (an edit done with a deceptive edit summary). This edit undid a total of three edits, and only this good edit was caught in the revert.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Countered changed the description from a movement to a hashtag. How is that a deceptive edit summary?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Look reeeeeeeeal closely.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

So the only reason you're casting blame on him is because he removed "Other incidents of harassment and threats targeting men and women on both sides of the debate occurred, prompting calls for calm." in his edit?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw that removal earlier, and agree it should have not been removed. It shows a neutral statemetn that both sides are trying to defuse the situation, and it should not have been removed to maintain NPOV. -MASEM (t) 06:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Go spend 5 minutes reading Zoe Quinn's twitter feed. I dare you to actually empathize with another human being for a moment rather than taking your damned wiki-handle so literally. Then go read the dozens of reliable sources that confirm that this is all about harassment and hardly anything about "ethics". Your changes water the whole thing down to a case of equal abuse. IT ISN'T. Tarc (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The 'changes' were bold edits by North and TDA reverted, WP:BRD. You restoring the edits runs afoul of BRD and is not good practice overall. I admittedly should've reverted them when they happened to contest them but TDA shouldn't be punished for doing it later. Tutelary (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

TDA is reverting 8 hours of work because the Frye piece in the Inquisitr was removed and a bunch of other people edited the article constructively. There was no reason to make this massive revert of multiple editors.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I reverted all but one edit that I intended to revert and I was working to restore it as stated in my edit summary before you reverted me.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I have read her Twitter feed plenty. The idea that a single paragraph in the article and a single sentence in the lede is treating it as a case of "equal abuse" is quite absurd. Quinn gets four whole paragraphs about her back-to-back, many of them much larger than the one you guys insist on trimming, and her opinion is splattered all across this article. Sarkeesian gets two to three paragraphs solely about harassment, Phil Fish actually gets half a paragraph that is is about as big as the minimal paragraph you insist on having about harassment of GamerGate supporters, and Brianna Wu gets slightly more attention than that. The idea that a single paragraph detailing the harassment of the dozens or people supporting GamerGate who have been harassed is giving them "equal weight" is really quite ridiculous.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

"Her opinion is splattered all across this article" because she was the one who was viciously, disgustingly and falsely attacked by a bunch of anonymous Internet trolls to get this whole sordid affair started, as umpteen squillion reliable sources discuss. See, on Wikipedia we don't let faceless mobs control the narrative about a living person. We learned that lesson ten years ago, the hard way.

If GamerGate didn't want to give Quinn, Wu and Sarkeesian an international platform to talk about their issues, maybe it shouldn't have made their lives into international news. I'm shocked, shocked to find out that mainstream media sources consider violent threats and harassment against three women who aren't gaming journalists to be rather thin evidence of GamerGate's concerns for "journalism ethics" issues. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That's nice and all, but the key point there was that we are hardly giving the harassment of GamerGate supporters more weight than the harassment any of them have faced as individuals by devoting numerous paragraphs to discussing their individual cases, while having one lonely paragraph to run down all the harassment faced by GamerGate supporters.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot take a side in this. Yes, personally, seeing how much noise Quinn is getting is saddening and I have zero sympathy for her harassers. However, when I am editing this article page, all that emotional aspects must be left at the door; we cannot edit in a reactionary manner if we are going to keep to NPOV --MASEM (t) 06:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

well, dear, do you not recognize the quite emotional front you are presenting in your attempts to valiantly save the honor of the poor poor mistreated gamergaters? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Terminology: Controversy, "Movement" ?, Supporters

User:Popcornduff is right. There is an inconsistency in the use of terminology. The lede refers to Gamergate as a controversy. However, the article frequently refers to Gamergate supporters. How can people support a controversy? If there is a controversy, people can support one side of the controversy or the other side. I infer that so-called Gamergate supporters are actually those who are supporting the video game culture against criticism by the mainstream media. Is that correct?

Also, some editors on this talk page have referred to a "movement", but I see nothing describing a movement. By a movement, are editors referring to a culture or subculture that views itself as under attack, or to a movement led by the mainstream media criticizing that culture. I infer that the references to the movement (in this talk page) are really to the culture that views itself as under attack. Is that correct?

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The popular use of the term in the media is to refer to the controversy. But we have the issue that one side has adopted the name as the name of their group that (appears to) support the notion of change in VG journalism due to ethics, and it is believed that a subset/minority of this group is also the ones responsible for the harassment and attacks. Going off KIA and other non-RSes if only for understanding, they see themselves as a movement because they themselves as consumers that are looking to change how the journalism industry operates and doing that by questioning the ethics, and now by focusing on advertisers (Keeping in mind that some in the press think this is a pretense, but that's not necessary to clear up the terminology). --MASEM (t) 22:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't seem able to reach a consensus on whether Gamergate is a movement or not. I'd like to move away from that debate (or at least keep it in the debate above) and focus on possible solutions to our wording problem. Popcornduff (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

We should not refer to Gamergate as a movement in the voice of Wikipedia. Reliably sourced quotes referring to it as a movement can be quoted. Also, you have added useful information to the effect that the so-called supporters, who are defending the culture, are also trying to change mainstream journalism on VG due to ethics. Of course, if they are on the same "side" as those doing the harassment and threats, the harassment and threats are not ethical. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

We can cite it as a "self-described" movement, which is fine, and I'm completing fine with any other way that makes it clear we are not calling it a movement w/o a source to back that up. --MASEM (t) 00:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've gone with that, thank you.

BTW; what's with the use of the term "gaming"? As in, "gaming industry" as opposed to "game industry" or "game culture"? I realise this is common, but it's slightly muddy to me - isn't it just simpler to say "game"? Not a major issue though. Popcornduff (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It's shorter than "video game".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

But longer than simply "game". If you think "game" could include things like board games, the same could be said of "gaming". Popcornduff (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok how can we make arguing here more productive.

The arguing largely seems to go unresolved, so I think something needs done, I posted something before but it had no effect, and I think I need to try again, in fact I think it's gotten even worse. I'd suggest reading this it's quite well written, I think it'd maybe be helpful to some people. Secondly, and I think I've said before, I think there'd be advantage in explaining why what you think is a good idea outside of the policy given it's not intended to be applied blindly, or atleast being more specific when citing policy, quoting the parts that you think supports your case. Or even doing both. Most people seem to develop strong views, acknowledge this and move on, don't fight with people over it, and please acknowledge your own biases. Lastly, and I've said this before, avoid accusing and insulting. Going around accusing people of being agenda pushers or calling them SJWs is not going to help anyone. If you think someone is doing something that wrong report them, or if you think it's unintentional say it to them in as friendly as manner as possible.

Lastly I'm going to kindly ask you not to discuss any actual policy or the article directly here, that's what my last attempt devolved into. Halfhat (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

False information in "Further Harassment"

Currently, in the Further Harassment and Threats part of the article, it states quote " Soon afterwards, Sarkeesian canceled a speaking appearance at Utah State University due to an anonymous shooting threat the school had received that alluded to the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre in Montreal, in which gunman Marc Lépine murdered 14 women in an act that he was quoted as saying was "fighting feminism". 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.[40][45][46][47] The threat was linked to GamerGate by Sarkeesian and the media, with The New York Times referring to it as "the most noxious example of a weekslong campaign to discredit or intimidate outspoken critics of the male-dominated gaming industry and its culture."[40]"

However, according to the Salt Lake City Tribune, Gamergate was never linked to this. To quote the Tribune: "After consulting with local, state and federal law enforcement agencies, the university decided to host Sarkeesian’s lecture as scheduled, said USU spokesman Tim Vitale. The university planned to increase security for the lecture and forbid backpacks in the auditorium. However, they wouldn’t forbid guns." Without the clarification of the misidentification on the part of the New York Times, it leaves the general reader coming to the page, with the impression of culpability on the part of GamerGate members. I suggest either removing that reference from the GamerGate page, and instead placing it on Anita Sarkeesian's page, or adding a notation of some sort that not everyone agrees on the source of the threat. Kitsunedawn (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Your reference doesn't mean what you claim it means. The fact that one source you found doesn't mention GamerGate does not mean "that not everyone agrees on the source of the threat." Multiple reliable sources have linked the Utah State University threat directly to GamerGate, including, yes, literally The New York Times. If you want us to pile on a dozen more citation links which directly connect the two, we can do that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Its actually true that there is no firm identity of who did the threat, but the added part of that quote, with Sarkeesian and NYTimes making the connection, is reasonable to include to say why that was believed to be connected to GG. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the problem, it says it was linked by Sarkeesian and the media, which is what happened. Halfhat (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The main problem is that it draws a conclusion, even though Salt Lake's unified department and the FBI have noted that the investigation is still underway. They're currently not commenting on it, beyond that they are investigating all leads.

It draws a conclusion which is supported by a number of reliable sources, and is refuted by precisely zero reliable sources. That "the investigation is still underway" does not prohibit us from noting the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources that link the threats to Gamergate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Is your problem the word "linked"? What would you rather something like, "said was said to have come from"? Halfhat (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

the fact that the harasser himself links himself to gamergate should sufficient for you to drop the damn stick. After the mass shooting threat was sent to the school Monday around 10:15 p.m., a second threat arrived Tuesday. That one, USU spokesman Tim Vitale confirmed, claimed affiliation with the controversial and sometimes-violent online video gamers’ movement known as GamerGate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

But we do need to be clear that while it is true the second threat used GG, the first - which included the ref to the shooting and was the one that prompted her cancellation - did not, though that NYTImes and others made this connection can be included. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. As long as the sources are connecting those dots, that's what we go with. Tarc (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Where do you have any source that says it was merely the first threat and not the series in whole that caused the cancellation and that the others were merely belated gift wrap that had no impact? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This peice could be worth mentioning

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/1/7136343/gamergate-and-the-politicization-of-absolutely-everything Something like "Writing for Vox Ezra Klein said that GamerGate showed the same liberal Vs. conservative attitude as wider American politics." Halfhat (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. Though, I'm somewhat on the fence about it. While about GamerGate, it's not really about the controversy itself. Rather, that could derail the page itself.Kitsunedawn (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's too much of a problem in putting the issue in a wider context, it does go off in tangents of course, but we don't need to mention them. Halfhat (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Making this article readable

There's been some discussion about the shear length making the article unreadable†. But I think there's another problem with the readability, the article is just ugly. I'm not really sure how to improve it, one thing is maybe to split some bits up and merge others, but easier said than done, especially when neutrality really can't be compromised. Has anyone got any ideas how to make the article prettier, or other ideas to make it more readable?Halfhat (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

†Sorry to be smug here, but I told you, I said this would happen a while back. Halfhat (talk)

No, you're not sorry to be smug. If you're self-aware enough to add a "Sorry to be X", you know it's a meaningless comment but intend to say it anyway.

I think splitting it up potentially makes sense; do you have any suggestions as to what bits might be better forked off? Ironholds (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I think splitting bits of it up might be premature. Before that's considered, we should really take a look at what can be removed or condensed. I've said it before, but I think we should seriously think about redoing the background section(I guess now it's the history section) or removing it entirely. Now that the "end of the gamer identity" section is down to about a paragraph, we don't really need 3 more in the history section describing the history of what it means to be a gamer. The info about early game journalism isn't related enough to the current controversy that it's worth keeping, and the info about previous harassment can be condensed down to a sentence or two when it's mentioned in other sections. None of it really adds anything to enhance the understanding of gamergate. Kaciemonster (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I was more talking about splitting sections into different ones, not making a new article. Sorry for the confusion. Also the I told you part was a joke. Halfhat (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The background stuff is rather important because it is an attempt to answer "why" this happened by reliable sources. Identifying that we're seeing an evolution in gaming, a change in demographics, and the ease to self-publish as indie and thus make more esoteric and less mainstream projects are all tied to why this is a culture war.

What can be trimmed down is some of the walls of quotes in the later sections, since there are paragraphs that contain 3-4 full length quotes from different people representing the same perspective and opinion. These also make those paragraphs "unreadably" long (more than 10-12 lines on a typical browser screen) Those can be trimmed down to remove the duplicating quotes, or reduced to portions of quotes, to remove those walls of text. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that it doesn't succeed in answering "why" this happened, and it doesn't make clear that it's even what that section is trying to do. All it's doing is making a confusing article even more confusing. It also doesn't change the fact that everything in the history section would provide better context in the sections they belong in. As it is, the article is so overloaded and disorganized that we keep repeating ourselves over and over again so that everything can have the proper context. If the history section did it's job right and provided the right context, we wouldn't need to repeat ourselves.

Ok, so what specifically is the first paragraph in the history section offering for context? All the sources are at the very end of the paragraph and it's extremely difficult to figure out what came from where. In the 4 sources cited, Nintendo Power isn't mentioned once. Can we get that paragraph properly cited and decide what it's offering the article as a whole?

And, for what it's worth, I agree with you about the oversaturation of quotes. If we can cut back on the direct quotes and do some restructuring, the article would be much easier to read. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It needs a lot of work. Enough that doing it all at once should leave a pit in most people's stomachs. I was looking again at the section labelled "Role of misogyny" - you know, the one below "debate (not role) of ethics concerns). And there's Somner's face there under that header that basically reads "misogynist". It's a section that contains only Somners, plus two quotes from people who disagree with Somners. For the life of me I couldn't think of any quick fix for that choice. Basically the entire article is hackily organized like this. Almost none of it makes any sense. I've advocated a full purge and re-write in the past, and I still think that's probably the only way to do it. Only problem is, if a re-write is done, it'll just wind up a mess again when somebody pretends that adding a slant to the article is neutral as long as they include a bunch of confusing wording to obfuscate what's being said. YellowSandals (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, fully protected again, urgh I give up, this article is doomed. Halfhat (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

"unsubstantiated allegations towards Quinn which were later proven false"

First, let me just say that this article confusing to anyone who doesn't already know anything about the topic. For example, it says that "unsubstantiated allegations towards Quinn which were later proven false". The double-negative is confusing. Does that mean that the unsubstantiated allegations later being proved false meant that they turned out to be true? Or does that mean that unsubstantiated allegations later being proved false turned out to be true meant that they were actually false? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Going back to just "false allegations" would be fine with me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It really should simply be 'false accusations, as there was never really a question if they were true or not: the journalist did not review the game, so how could Quinn have bribed him to review her game by having sex with him? Apparently that was considered too biased against the people doing the accusing, so we have the wording we have. "Later proven false" here likely refers to a statement from the publication which said what was already perfectly clear - that there was no review. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouth's wording here works for me; not sure about everyone else. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

For now, I've changed it back to "false allegations and harassment of Quinn" to remove the double negative. - Bilby (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That sentence keeps going back to silliness. Somebody re-writes it to make sense by saying the allegations were false. Then somebody decides to say the false allegations were false. Then somebody later adds that the utterly untrue falsehood of false allegations were proven, definitively, to be false. I think it's part of an ongoing effort to make it clear who the good guys are bad guys are - such that if the allegations are extremely false, then Gamergate has no legs to stand on and is, as many have argued, factually evil. And this is what I'm talking about when I keep saying there's nowhere the article can go by constantly trying to prove the morality of any parties involved in this thing. You could say what is and leave the article alone, or you constantly change all the wording until nothing makes sense - because if we write a biased sentence and use a ton of neutral qualifying language to try to smooth it out, it just reads like a crazy person wrote it. This needs to stop. YellowSandals (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No. The issue here is that people want Wikipedia to say Zoe Quinn slept with Nathan Grayson to advance her career because they don't believe anything else is the case. By having "false allegations" in the lead, or any variation thereof, it's spitting in the face of the GamerGater who insists that there is no reason for anyone to have slept together other than whatever new conspiracy theory KIA comes up with.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much what I said. Anyway, I notice you've been whitewashing the article to get rid of negative things that happened to Gamergate supporters. I'm honestly starting to get tired of this whole thing. It feels too ideological. It's un-fixable because there's too many people here who think that morals and motivations are universally concrete, and they keep changing the article to represent that bent world view. Gradually, because the world really isn't that black and white, this article is going to be full of stupid, misanthropic trivia, some of which will be intentional smears on individual Gamergate supporters, and it's going to look... just, childish. YellowSandals (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

How is it a bent world view to ensure that the article clarifies that the initial accusations that Quinn's relationship with Grayson resulted in positive press for her game were proven wrong when everyone and their mother realized that there was never a review for her game written by Grayson or anyone else at Kotaku? Or are you adhering to the things that we cannot in any possible way write on any Wikipedia page that have been alleged over and over again?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe they're elaborating that biased and ideological editing is ruining the article and misframed and characterized sentences that don't read well is one of the symptoms. Tutelary (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is getting more difficult to word things properly that doesn't cause someone who suddenly remembers their Wikipedia password to rewrite everything because they believe it's biased against their point of view.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

A lot of people see an article spouting nonsense about ingrained evil and immorality, accusatory to the point of sounding desperate, and they think, "Wow, this is pretty biased. Also really badly written. Let me take a crack at this." It gets fixed up for like a day or two, and then the article goes right back to spouting clumsily-worded slurs and accusations. YellowSandals (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not what the article says. That may be how you are interpretting it but that's not my problem or Wikipedia's.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That world view is bent because you've been pushing to add smear pieces into the article. Ridiculous things, like airing out someone's sexual fetishes to prove how misogynistic they are, even though their connection to Gamergate is merely that they moderate a forum for it. A forum I've visited after getting started on this thing - and I notice they mention certain Wiki editors by name there. One might wonder if you wanted to include that smear piece for personal reasons. But then again, I would believe it if you said you thought you weren't biased. That's what's crazy - I think a lot of people here believe they are doing the right thing, and that's why the article not only won't, but can't get its act together. YellowSandals (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a forum where the Japanese word for "murder" was associated with my screenname. But I have no beef with any of the moderation team unless they truly make things personal, but I would not act that out on Wikipedia. I didn't originally write the paragraph that cited BuzzFeed after all. I just argued that it wasn't a BLP vio.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Going forum here but seeing as this refers to me, just a clarification, the "murder" thing you refer to, was a nod at Ryu_(Street_Fighter). It's a joke by admins towards you, that you have "a desire to kill", or calling you Evil Ryu, please don't take a joke from video games seriously Loganmac (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Because you know gamergate has nothing to do with harassment and death threats, because actually its about ethics in games journalism and you should only take death threats seriously when they are serious death threats and not insider jokes made at outsiders. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That's the second time I've seen you spamming your personal blog, I just explained it's not a death threat, it's associating him the name of Evil Ryu, in any case I didn't make that joke so I don't get get why he's complaining about it on Wikipedia, it was KiA mods, and as far as I'm aware none of them have accounts here Loganmac (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@YellowSandals, I can't comment on what is driving others in regard to how we word the issue, but I really don't care about how it looks in regard to GG, one way or the other. It is a simple BLP issue - we need unambiguous wording because the allegations were fully disproven. We also have the additional concern that the false allegations were part of the harassment she received and helped drive further harassment - thus we need to be careful so as not to compound the situation. Mind you, I don't know why this keeps coming back to Quinn, as I gather that GG is actually about ethics in game journalism. gG supporters really should back off from allegations that aren't even significant any more and focus on things that matter. - Bilby (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as one that has tried to understand this point: there's an argument that we cannot say that Quinn and Grayson's relationship is false (in fact, Kotaku affirms they have one), and that facet should be included in the initial allegation. There's also that point to that the allegation of using the romance to get "positive press" (not a review) and then subsequently pointing out that Grayson did include DQ at a point that was "near enough" in the relationship that this could have been an issue. We definitely can't include these, but maybe that we can say "While Quinn and Grayson did begin to have a closer relationship around April 2014, the allegations that she used this for positive press were proven false." We cannot address any other factor here, and the press definitely has not considered these other factors to be even remotely an issue (the Game Jam mention was when they were definitely corresponding, feeding the larger issue of disclosures, but the press is basically treating the idea that this specific instance being a severe problem as FRINGE-y.) We should be very exact here of what the false accusation is. --MASEM (t) 06:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you instead use the neutral statement that is used ANYWHERE when a first-party denies something "These claims weere denied by Nathan Grayson and Kotaku's editor-in-chief Stephen Totilo"? I know sources haven't covered it, but there's other stuff people here are implicated with that deal with Patreons but obviously even discussing this in specifics is BLP so... Loganmac (talk) 06:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Because people looking independently from the outside in see no review by Grayson for Depression Quest. And if you can't raise an issue without violating BLP then it's not something that should even be remotely mentioned on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Not my argument but there is claims that the GAME JAM piece is evidence of their claim being true. Obviously the press doesn't agree (a # have identified that GAME JAM article exists but don't consider it really usable evidence. In reality, the statement would be something like "The media widely considered the claim of Quinn using her romantic relationship with Grayson to get positive press to be false based on statements made by Kotaku and Grayson (and Quinn?), and the lack of any significant coverage of DQ at sites Grayson wrote for after the time their relationship started". But that's super chunky for a lede. --MASEM (t) 06:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

As has been explained here 10,000 times, every mainstream reliable source treats them as false because they are provably factually false. If you can't even admit that the purported review literally never existed then your goal is to insert categorical falsehoods about a living person into the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

For all purposes, the only claim that can be proven false is "Grayson wrote a review of DQ after the relationship", as no such review exists. Every other variant, we are saying it has been refuted (which is not saying it's false, just that the evidence suggests it is not, or that if it is, it's such a minor/triviality to not matter as a moral wrong) based on Kotaku/Grayson's statement of the timeline, and how the press has not considered anything like the GameJam article to be a problem here. They haven't been shown false because there might have been things happening that we simply cannot tell. (Completely hypothetical, but perhaps a member of Kotaku was in the process of writing a DQ review but when GG broke, they dropped it fast.) But, in terms of writing this article and considering the press, we simply don't care about the 'threading the needle" arguments to try to say why the claims were false. This is why saying "refuted" or a similar, non-absolute word is true and more reflective of the situation; "false" is too much of an absolute for what the allegation actually is. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The claims are false and were shown to be false early on. There's no reliable source out there which regards the claims as true. The only "threading the needle" going on is by those who want us to be unjustifiably credulous of an accusation made by a jilted ex. The central, early claim in GG was that ZQ fucked her way into press coverage. If you want our article to treat that universally rejected claim as merely "refuted" then go ahead and say so but don't piss on me and tell me it's raining. Protonk (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Masem, the fact that Quinn and Grayson had a relationship is not treated as meaningful by any significant reliable source. There is nothing unethical, wrongful or of public interest about two private people having a relationship. Journalistic outlets are not in the business of investigating relationship drama. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm coming back to this being a statement that keeps getting challenges, and if we had to, we can use Kotaku's refutting statement that established they had a relationship at the time, but Grayson never wrote anything about DQ after. I just known that there is a lot of complaints from proGG people on how this accusation seems to be hand-waved away and their actually accusations not really addressd in full, which I agree with you that we can't do a thing about. --MASEM (t) 06:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

How is this triumph of nonexistent research still being discussed? Yes, Nathan Grayson only ever wrote one article about Zoe Quinn FOR KOTAKU--the story about the failed game jam. What most sources omit or (inexplicably) deny is that he additionally wrote about her for Rock Paper Shotgun, as seen here: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/08/admission-quest-valve-greenlights-50-more-games/ This is not a review. It's supposed to be coverage on a batch of 50 games that were being added to Steam Greenlight. Quinn's game "Depression Quest" is the first of only three games--again, of fifty--mentioned in the article text (where it's referred to as a "powerful Twine darling"), and one of two games mentioned in the tags. The illustration is a "Depression Quest" screenshot. Even the title of the article is a reference to "Depression Quest". Pointing out that this was published before the sexual phase of their relationship is fine, but pretending it doesn't exist because demonstrable positive press/arguable favoritism derails a political position is clearly not. You don't "disprove" things by not doing your damn homework. Tevildoii (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

1. It's not a review, it's a couple-line mention and 2. There's no evidence of any link to the relationship, as it was written four months before the relationship began, by Eron Gjoni's own timeline. No reliable source has considered it a meaningful issue. One can make up all sorts of hypothetical issues based on no evidence at all whatsoever, but unsupported insinuations and synthesis about living persons have no place on Wikipedia.

In the real world, journalists are human beings. They make acquaintances and relationships in the process of their work. They are not robotic monks, and no code of ethics anywhere prohibits a journalist from having a relationship with someone else. Ethics codes certainly do prohibit journalists from writing about people who they are in a close personal relationship with (at least, without disclosure), but as has been repeatedly demonstrated, that didn't happen in this case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I stipulated that it was not a review and that it predated the sexual relationship. You're missing the point. From the much-cited Newsweek article: "Grayson only wrote about Quinn once, for a story on a failed reality show, and that was before they were in a relationship, according to Stephen Totilo, the editor-in-chief of Kotaku and Grayson’s boss." Other sources have said much the same thing. If the statements you use to prove something false are themselves provably false, perhaps your RSes aren't so R this time around. Tevildoii (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Or they consider it so trivial that it doesn't even bear mentioning. I mean, it's not about Quinn. It's not really about Depression Quest, either. A grand total of five words are spent on the game. That's the type of article that, if we were discussing the notability of Depression Quest, wouldn't even count as a source. Woodroar (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to point out that playing coy games about how the accusations about Quinn could have been true if you ignore almost all the facts is apparently just about the only way to get topic banned from this article. The 'narrative' is well established by reliable sources - gamergate is based on a fabricated sex scandal cooked up to destroy a woman's life. Sorry, but them's the facts. There is no room for any further discussion of who Zoe Quinn may or may not have had sex with and when. -- TaraInDC (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No. The problem is not notability but factuality. The existence of articles such as http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/03/22/gdc-video-oculus-rift-papers-please-gone-home/ and the previously-cited "Admission Quest" disprove the assertion that Grayson only wrote about Quinn once. Totilo may be misspoken or been misinformed--we don't know. What we do know is that the claim is untrue. Responsible editing does not allow the use of dated and inaccurate information. Tevildoii (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:TRUTH. Just because you can pull this Rock Paper Shotgun article out of your ass to go "LOOK!!!1 CORRUPTION IN VIDYA JOURNALISMO" doesn't mean that it has any bearing on what goes on Wikipedia. No one writing about this topic has even bothered with that piece that was written months before anything actually happened in GamerGate so using it as evidence to the contrary is not how Wikipedia works.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, so Quinn appeared with Grayson and several other journalists and developers in a video panel discussion about video games in March 2014. This is supposed to be evidence of... what, exactly? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Totilo did not say what you believe he said. What Totilo said was that "On March 31, Nathan published the only Kotaku article he's written involving Zoe Quinn..." Which is demonstrably true. So no, the claim is not untrue and responsible editing requires that we use reliably-sourced statements to demonstrate such. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you guys started posting MS Paint diagrams yet? Artw (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph

Why is the first sentence only saying misgony and harassement?

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

The former text was much better to promoted the different perspective of the case

Gamergate' (sometimes referred to as GamerGate or as hashtag #gamergate) is a controversy centering on misogyny and harassment in video game culture, the role of social commentary in game critiques, ethics in video game journalism and possible conflicts of interest between video game journalists and developers. --Torga (talk) 08:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It's only saying that in the first sentence because people completely uninvolved in the months of content disputes recognize that it's the primary focus of the media and adequately separates what constitutes the movement from the controversy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

We present both sides of the claim as to what the movement is. There is no dispute, and can be no dispute, that the overall controversy, as expressed by reliable sources, relates to issues of misogyny and harassment. Virtually every mainstream article frames the issue in the context of misogyny and harassment. The controversy and movement would likely be unencyclopedic if not for the extensive mainstream coverage of those issues. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Just so. I came back after commenting previously in an RfC about the first paragraph, and I think it's pretty balanced and readable now, and matches what my impression is reliable sources report about this issue.  Sandstein  10:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence is patently false however because it ignores the aspect of the supporting side who have clearly claimed it is not about misogy; for sake of simplicity of explaining the basics, the structure is right. For keeping this, it would be better to move the misogyny and harassment part to the sentence about the detractors, and add in the continued harassment, and media's believe the ethics angle is a front. That in three sentences would give the quickest broad overview in a form that is easy to understand which side is which, and matches the common approach that less biased sources describe GG by first explaining the pro side and then the other side, without attributing and immediate qualification on what the controversy actually involves. --MASEM (t) 12:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

"Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #gamergate) is a controversy which started in August 2014, concerning misogyny and harassment in video game culture." There's no room for opinion there. There's no 'no, no, it's a controversy about ethics!' It's not. The sources prove it. Gamergaters claim their movement is about ethics, but that's another story and is covered later on in the lede. Our sources don't support any claim that gamergate is a 'controversy about ethics in journalism' because none of the 'controversial' events surrounding it have had anything to do with ethics in journalism. -- TaraInDC (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

(other than edited for clarity "controversy" clinging to GG that even from the the initial "see! Zoe! Ethics!!!" the GG claims were patently NOT TRUE) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Fully endorse Masem's suggestion to move the misogyny and harassment part to the sentence about the detractors. It logically fits the timeline. starship.paint ~ regal 13:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No it doesnt. the timeline and all of the reliable sources place the harassment at the very begining - the harassment of Quinn.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No, the problem is that the controversy is not solely about misogyny or sexism or harassment. When all three parts (misogyny, social commentary, and ethics) were used within the same phrase, that's a much more accurate statement as fair broad statement capturing many different viewpoints in a fell swoop. Limiting it only to misogyny/harassment is presenting only one viewpoint and that's absolutely against NPOV.

Now, to keep it simple based on the way that is already stated as to have a single para attempt to encapsulate everything all sides have said in a neutral POV/tone, this can be changed to Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #gamergate) is a controversy in the video game industry which started in August 2014 primarily over social media. Supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement state that they are opposing corruption in video game journalism. Detractors state that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture, and have broadly condemned the movement based on continued sexism, misogyny and harassment predominately towards female figures in the industry attributed to Gamergate supporters. You get both sides quickly, you get the fact that the media absolutely does not like GG, you get the fact that there is misogyny and harassment has been happening and is a central part of the controversy, and is written without WP's voice blaming or praising either side. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Your proposed wording is a massive WP:UNDUE issue. Look at the coverage, for pity's sake. Where is there any evidence of 'controversy' in regards to journalistic ethics? "But ethics!" gets namechecked from time to time, but the news articles are not about the ethics angle, they're about the harassment of women with the audacity to have opinions on the internet. A bunch of people claiming gamergate is about ethics does not an ethics controversy make. This is one of the advantages of making the article about the controversy rather than the movement: the movement's decentralized and proponents can always claim that they're just not being given a fair shake in the media. By writing about the controversy we can stick to what the sources are actually saying, because that's what a 'controversy' is, fundamentally: a discussion in the public sphere. The discussion in the public sphere revolves around the gaming community's treatment of women, not ethics. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, it is absolutely not undue, when we are talking about the more concise (3 sentence), broadest overview in a few sentences, where UNDUE is very difficult to apply. (The rest of the article, sure) The controversy is not strictly over misogyny and harassment, as no one proGG is talking and discussing those factors in any major sense; irregardless of what the press says, that side says it is about ethics, and so to flat out ignore that in a broad overview while putting the opinions of the press that it is all about misogyny and harassment is a complete and utter violation of NPOV. Yes, the predominance of the opinion from the press condemning the movement is important, that's why explaining that part out more in the lead provided the proper treatment of the sides per UNDUE. But we will not be taking the opiniated stance that the press has to write the parts of this article in WP's voice. We'll identify their opinion, and that'll be predominate in this article as it will never have balanced, but Wikipedia cannot condemn Gamergate in its own voice if we are to stay true to NPOV. We have to treat the GG side as one side of a debate, one that we cannot give balanced coverage to, but without blaming them for anything. Any other attempt to change that stance violates NPOV. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence that there's any controversy regarding ethics in gaming journalism. The 'controversy' is not 'gamergate says its about ethics but everyone else has noticed that it has a worrying habit of driving women out of their homes.' If the 'controversy' of gamergate was 'ethics or not ethics?' then that would be the focus of at least a substantial portion of the articles on the subject. This issue is notable because of the ongoing controversy about the treatment of women in the gaming community. That's the sources we have. That's the controversy we're writing about. We do not have to 'treat GG as one side of a debate' and we do not have to give equal coverage to both 'sides' in the lede. This is an article about a controversy, and that controversy is not about game journalism ethics. That's not 'condemning gamergate,' that's simply writing an article that accurately reflects the sources. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There's plenty of evidence that the GG supporters claim it about ethics; the press beg the question if there is this much harassment and this little actual discussion of ethics if this truly is the case. That is an accurate statement. We do not have to 'treat GG as one side of a debate' is 100% against WP:NPOV which tells us to not take a side. This isn't about balance (which can never achieve), this is about neutrality and a neutral that treats both sides as legitimate, even though one side has opined that the other side is not. If you cannot leave your dislike of proGG at the door, you should not be editing this page. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that gaters claim gamergate is about ethics. What I'm saying is that's not what the controversy is about. The discussion of gamergate in the public sphere centers around its treatment of women, not around its claims of journalistic ethics. It's a controversy about misogynistic harassment spawned by a movement that claims to be about journalistic ethics, and while we have sources for those claims, we have no sources for any 'controversies' surrounding ethics that the movement has spawned. Accurately representing the sources we have on this controversy is not 'taking a side.' Claiming that gamergate is a controversy that is even in part about ethics in gaming journalism when all we have are claims to that effect and no real discussion on the issue in the public sphere is a WP:NPOV violation. It's not true that we can never achieve balance. That's what we're working towards now, a balanced presentation of this issue that reflects how the sources are presenting it. Per WP:VALID and WP:BALANCE, "balanced" does not mean "gives equal space to extreme minority views" here on WP.

"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. " Neutrality is not about 'treating both sides as legitimate.' It's about representing the sources accurately. We have sources that briefly mention the claim that gamergate is about ethics in journalism in the context of articles about the controversy regarding the harassment the movement has spawned, and some that actively debunk the claims or point out how weak they are considering the targets the movement has chosen. We don't have sources for a 'controversy' about ethics gaming journalism. "Nuh-uh! It's about ethics!" is not in and of itself a 'controversy.'

If you cannot keep your comments focused on the content rather than the contributors, you should not be editing this page. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

See that word "fair"? That's missing in all of this. In this context "fair" means that because there still is non-opinionated attempts to determine what proGG's side is, we treat it as a legitimate group in the discussion. We can report all the claims the press has made to dismiss what they think GG means, which will overwhelm the sources that try to give validity to the proGG claims, that's fine, but that's going to be in the press's voice, not Wikipedia's. That's not what is happening here with edits like this. We have to be neutral in tone, even moreso when we know we cannot be balanced in sourcing. (And I'm speaking the "you" as figuratively of any editor working this article, and not directed at any one specific editor. This also goes for SPAs and the like that want to voice it favoring proGG which we cannot. The behavioral issues tied with the content of this article I've argued at the ArbCom case). --MASEM (t) 18:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

See that word "fair"? That's missing in all of this. In this context "fair" means that because there still is non-opinionated attempts to determine what proGG's side is, we treat it as a legitimate group in the discussion. See WP:WEIGHT. Gamergate does not actually get an 'opinion' on what controversies their movement spawned: we have reliable sources that cover that for us. We can't claim that the 'gamergate controversy' is one about ethics in journalism when there are no sources for that fact, not even in the name of 'balance,' because, as WP:VALID says, "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance." Citing sources that primarily discuss the harassment of women coming out of Gamergate but which briefly mention that gamergaters claim their movement is about ethics in journalism to justify the 'both sides' approach. Gamergaters can argue all they like that they're really about ethics, but they can not claim that they have created a controversy about ethics, because the simple fact is that they have not. The former might be a matter of opinion (though even that's a stretch) but the latter absolutely is not. There is no conversation going on about ethics based on gamergate. There is a great deal of conversation going on about the harassment of women. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

"Fair" and "balance" are two separate axes. It is not an attempt to give proGG an "equal validity" because it is impossible to give it any balance. But we can manage the fairness by treating the fact that there is a proGG side, and while vague, they have stated what they'd like to see changed. In a WP voice, failure to give the proGG the benefit of a doubt is a policy-breaking violation of NPOV. After we present the proGG side, we can introduce the fact that the press treats their claims of ethics with incredulity, which is just fine - that's the weight of the sourcing right there. Remember: there are plenty of highly reliable sources that are still giving the GG side the time of day even if in the next breath they deride it, so it remains in WP's best practices and interest to treat the proGG side as a legitimate side of the debate. Failure to do so violates policies left and right. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, we cannot take a feminism viewpoint here and write the article on sympathies for the harassed people. We are clearly going to have much of the opinion on GG factoring in the harassment, no question, but again, in WP's voice, it is not fair to give that side the tone that they are "right" and/or treat the other side as "wrong", without any factual evidence of the specific people involved in the harassment (this is the problem with online harassment, is that the claims of who did it are near impossible to figure out). As such, havign this article assign blame in WP's voice is flat out wrong, because there is no evidence that those supporting GG are to blame. It's likely, but it's not proven. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, we can acknowledge that there is a 'pro-GG side,' such as it is. We're already doing that, in fact. What we can't do is claim that gamergate caused a controversy over journalism ethics when there's no evidence it did. Please provide articles that describe the gamergate controversy as a controversy over journalistic ethics, and not merely ones that mention that the controversy over women's treatment in gaming is one that was started by a group that claims to be concerned with journalistic ethics. Your argument that acknowledging that harassment exists and treating it like what it is - the only genuinely noteworthy element of the movement, per the balance of our sources - is not 'taking a feminism viewpoint.' You are going to have a pretty damned hard time finding credible sources that are going to treat harassment as 'right,' so I really don't know what your point is in even bringing it up. We don't need to say 'harassment is wrong,' and nowhere in the article do we come close to doing so. What we are doing is saying' harassment occurred,' because we are required to reflect what our sources are saying about this issue and that is essentially all that the sources are saying about gamergate. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

First point: note my suggested change: it doesn't assign anything of what the controversy is over, because it still remains unclear. It does establish that the proGG think it's ethics, and then says that the detractors disbelieve that because of the harassment and misogyny. That's fair and balanced to all parties involved. Saying it is only about harassment and misogyny is not.

Second point: It is not the view that harassment is wrong/right; that should be a common morality aspect that it is wrong, and it should be stated where appropriate that the reason proGG is not getting favorable press is due to the harassment attacks believed to be from the proGG side. That's fine. But there's two problems: one there is no factual evidence that the actual members of proGG did the harassment. The harassment was done under the banner of "Gamergate", but no one has linked a self-admitted GG supporter to an harassment attack. I'm sure there are (it would be naive to say otherwise), and the press certainly believes there are, so we're definitely going to say how they believe GG uses harassment as a tool, and even to those that were not doing the harassment, they are playing the guilt-by-association card. But we cannot say "GG supporters performed harassment against these people" as a fact, as there is no evidence for that. Second: while is should be taken as harassment is considered a common sense moral wrong, we don't need to drill this into the reader's head over and over. There are points we should stay to the facts and write clinically; the excessive use of long quotes in the section about the role of sexism and misogyny is clearly written as strongly condemning in WP's voice because we include so many quotes. We can state most of that factually with a few shorter pull-quotes and summation and that will change the tone, so that it is still clear the press consider this all sexist and misogynistic, but not with a tone to keep reminding the reader that "proGG must bad because of all these complaints". --MASEM (t) 20:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, no, the sources are quite clear. the controversy is about death threats and misogyny. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. If it were 'unclear' what the controversy is about there would at a minimum be some dissent among reliable sources. There isn't. We are not going to second-guess our sources with regards to 'who is doing the harassment' or why it is happening. They're treating it as the issue of gamergate, and so must we. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There's plenty of dissent in the sources, and the high quality sources absolutely do not describe soley in the fashion of being only about sexism and misogyny. (see the previous Boston Globe article which is the format we should follow; 1) it is a controversy with unclear effects/goals 2) here is what proGG says it is 3) here it was the rest of the world says it is and condmens the proGG side. We are required by policy to be neutral and keep in mind when the press are injecting opinion to try to make it fact. --MASEM (t) 21:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That there is only one reliable source that you can provide has the spin that you prefer is indicative that it is WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: Reframe the lead sentence to reflect the topic that is covered by the reliable sources

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

my offering. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Remember report the facts but don't share the opinions of RS, Wikipedia has no opinion. Halfhat (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

and where are you seeing opinion? or are you just making a general comment? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a general comment really, I've pretty much given up on doing much here since they protected it again, I'll still offer the odd comment though. Halfhat (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This looks fine as well. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't work. The controversy is not just about misogyny and harassment; that would be like saying the Iraq War was about the US getting cheap oil - it's true but it is far from the whole story and disenfranchises a whole side from it. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Precisely the example. Our article does not present "but oil" as anything but a minority claim and that that is how the "but ethics" needs to be presented as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Bingo. Protonk (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that's wrong. Not giving the proGG any respect for their cause, just because the press has opted to, is a full out failure of NPOV. We have to give them the benefit of the doubt as the best reliable sources still do. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

uhhhh WP:V WP:OR WP:UNDUE no. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)c

"Not giving the proGG any respect for their cause, just because the press has opted to, is a full out failure of NPOV" Um...no. Protonk (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you guys just let loose and say the Gamergate controversy is an example inhumanity, rooted in blind worship of the evil patriarchy and bereft of the warm light of sex-negative feminism? We had a neutral lead written by a well-meaning someone. Now we have a lead that once again uses Wikipedia's voice to attack the morality of a group, insisting over and over that due weight defeats impartiality or the need to attribute points of view. This is just impossible. What would it take to persuade people here that morality is vague and that it's fundamentally impossible to write an impartial article as long as you insist on establishing a moral judgement on the subject of the article?

This debate goes around in circles. "Establish that the sides of this conflict are points of view." "No, my side is factually correct and the other side is factually evil! It's due weight to prove the other side is evil!" On and on and on. It's clearly ideological to the point of being religious. How is it handled when a page on a controversial religious subject comes under heated dispute? Maybe we should start to approach this thing in those terms. YellowSandals (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I mean, I don't think this issue is just about facts, here. I think there's a fundamental belief system at work that classifies things into very specific containers of good and evil. This ideological approach doesn't allow certain people to even look at the debate as though there were any reasons for it beyond a child-like commitment to Saturday morning cartoon villainy. Some editors apparently don't see mobs or humans. They a see modern version of Satan doing His evil work, and they feel that even giving the devil enough credit to say he's potentially angry about something will leave a chink the armor that will allow demons into the hearts of the people. There's just a stubborn obstinance here that goes above and beyond politics. It would be one thing to be weighting the article to disprove Gamergate's stances - which you are doing - but there's also a very keen effort to make the article attack Gamergate on a moral and ideological level as well, following a misguided assumption that one can factually determine immorality. YellowSandals (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

please focus on article content. (but yes, Harassment and death threats are fundamentally believed by most groups in society to be evil) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I am discussing the content. This article needs a more objective, expository tone. If most groups of society agree with you that Gamergate is an evil organization that must be crushed at all costs, then let Gamergate's evil speak for itself and stop trying to insinuate it into the article. We write impartially for ISIS, the Nazis, the KKK, and everyone else. Why do you need to establish a moral point of view in this article? Are you worried that people are going to think there's something to Gamergate? Because, honestly, when you hear their complaint that they're being smothered by morality police and then you come to this article and find it full of moral policing, it kind of gives credence to their complaints. Maybe you are shooting yourself in the foot. YellowSandals (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, the lack of sources to support your claim is notable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

What Is the Ethics Issue?

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

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

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

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

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

Quoting directly from the policy you cite:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion: Removal "False allegations against Quinn and subsequent harassment" section due to lack of proof

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

---

The reliable sources clearly have covered the harassments- in fact it is the ONLY reason GG is WP:GNG worth having an article at all.

Hello. I am writing this suggestion from not having taken a side on the #GamerGate controversy. I think that this sentence and section (mentioned in title) in particular should be removed UNTIL a source backing up this claim (specifically the one on false allegations) is found for both sides of the argument: "This led to harassment of Quinn, including false accusations that the relationship had led to positive coverage of Quinn's game". I read all of the cited sources in the section related to this claim (specifically sources [14][20][3][21]), and maybe this is just me (correct me if it is), but I did not find anything in any of the articles mentioned saying that the allegations of positive coverage of Quinn's game due to a relationship with one of the employees at Kotaku were "false". I think the person(s) who cited those sources and the person(s) who contributed to the section is/are forgetting that the #GamerGate community did not say that the one person in particular Quinn had an affair with was responsible for writing an article them-self, but rather that this affair led Kotaku to put up a positive review of the game (this review has since been removed from Kotaku's site from what I am aware of). Because of this, I believe the section was intentionally not written from a neutral point of view. I am also suspicious of the fact that this section is right at the very top, rather than closer to the end of the article (where I believe it should be). The fact of the matter is, that there is no proof to back up claims from either side and therefore I think it is necessary that the section be removed to avoid further controversy.

Note: I understand there is proof of harassment, but I only put there because it is the title of the section. I have nothing against that particular subject
[[THEO!|User:Tjraptis20]] (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the accuser to prove their claims, not on the accused to disprove the claims. The wording will stand as-is. Tarc (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I keep looking for the teapot circling the sun and until someone proves it's not there I'm going to believe in it. Countered (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments on closing of my previous discussion

I mentioned in said discussion that I did not have anything against harassment claims, and the discussion appears to be closed because "The reliable sources clearly have covered the harassments". Can someone please explain to me what I am missing here?
[[THEO!|User:Tjraptis20]] (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Your acknowledgment of harassment is recognized; as is your absurd request to not cover the most covered aspect of the situation. WP:UNDUE will not be tossed out the window. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)}}

Red Pen, don't close discussions when you clearly have a certain POV regarding it. It's not helpful and is certainly biting the person. Tutelary (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

#GamerGate is not a "minority". As mentioned by Tutelary, you clearly do not have a neutral point of view on this subject. You would help the article more if you allowed people to question its integrity, rather than trying to silence them by closing their discussion and calling their requests "absurd" [[THEO!|User:Tjraptis20]] (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate is very much a minority POV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Based on previous encounters me and you have had, I have tons of reason to believe that you are biased on this topic too. Please do not leave these kinds of comments as they serve no purpose in finding a solution to this problem. [[THEO!|User:Tjraptis20]] (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You do not get a veto over who can respond to your posts on an article talk page. You made a statement, apparently in response to the WP:UNDUE argument, that GamerGate isn't a minority. That's not true, as a cursory review of sources will reveal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Straw poll - update lead

Should the lead paragraph be updated to read:

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

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

!vote

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

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

• oppose Aside from the issue of having a partisan slant, the wording is loopy and poorly structured. Like always, the wording is poor to try to disguise a biased statement as though it were a neutral one. No points of view are attributed... it's the same biased, hacky thing you guys keep writing. What's different about it this time? YellowSandals (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• oppose Sorry I don't have time to explain now, it's similar to the above 2. Halfhat (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose but only because I prefer the version that came about prior to the full protection.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• oppose per yellow sandals Retartist (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose violates WP:NPOV by condemning pro-GG without hedging -> "ostensibly" starship.paint ~ regal 22:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• oppose Not biased enough, should throw in there some mentions like "GamerGate is literally ISIS", like I've seen floating around Loganmac (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

the inevitable rambling discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article neutrality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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