Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

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

See /RFC1

Sanctions enforcement

All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to General sanctions

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement

"Conspiracy theories in the United States"

When was adding this category discussed? The only mention of it being labeled a conspiracy theory is not even about the movement itself, it's a single mention by Leigh Alexander, someone involved in the controversy saying some of it is based "on bizarre conspiracy theories", yet another attempt at controlling the narrative, albeit this one a sneaky one. This should be removed until a consensus is reached Loganmac (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• No, the core of GG is described as a conspiracy theory throughout the article's sources (and other reliable sources). I'll put some of the examples at the end to make this more readable, but basically, I think that it's uncontroversial -- obviously most GG sources allege a conspiracy (accusations of collision and conspiracy are at the core of what they feel are ethical breaches, after all); it's just that they dislike having that framed as 'conspiracy theory' as opposed to, I guess, 'conspiracy fact'. But either way, just a quick look over the article's sources show that most of the ones we're relying on for a general overview describe GG as being based around conspiracy theories (this is just from a random grab of some of them -- I'm not going to read every single one of the 40+ sources, but these are all clearly from reliable publications.) If anything, I think that these make it clear that we should cover the conspiracy-theory nature of the controversy in more detail rather than just via categorization:
  • The Verge's article describes "The conspiracy theory at the core of Gamergate..."
  • The quoted response from DiGRA likewise describes it as a conspiracy theory.
  • The Guardian article says: "And ultimately, those members of the gaming community who distrust the games press, have a really wonderful option: make the alternative. Instead of constructing strange conspiracy theories and flooding games sites with vitriolic comments, withdraw entirely."
  • The Daily Beast article says: "On one side are calls for reason and equality; on the other are the conspiracy theorists who fund a “documentary” intended to “shed light on the truth: that the SJWs have been the ones using manipulation and intimidation to push their agenda forward and that the mainstream media has accepted their story uncritically.”
  • The New York Magazine article: "...I was inundated with angry tweets from the movement’s indignant supporters. You don’t get it, they insisted. This is about ethics in journalism. They often pointed me to long, pretty involved conspiracy theories that seemed to claim, among other things, that various gaming websites were colluding to attack the “gamer” identity they held so dear, or that an indie developer named Zoe Quinn had slept her way to positive coverage."
  • The Week describes GG as existing in a "hermetically sealed bubble of conspiracy nonsense".

There's many more (even the Forbes article, which IIRC we're not using at the moment, makes repeated references to the movement being based around conspiracy theories, describing the earliest video as one that "...speculates on a feminist/social justice illuminati that are taking over gaming, and accused Quinn’s parent company, Silverstring Media, of being a part of that conspiracy.") Gamergate's accusations are described as conspiracy theories throughout most of the reliable sources that make up the basis of the current article. --Aquillion (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hatting off-topic commentary about others and WP:SOAP, both of which violate WP:GS/GG, keep it up and there will be sanctions. Dreadstar ☥ 08:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Again, we have the spectacle of (a) an angry, outraged claim that Gamergate is wronged! This must not stand! This comes from Loganmac, who was most recently seen on his own talk page colluding with topic-banned DungeonSiege5whatever. This is followed by Aquillion patiently, exhaustively, definitively, cataloging the many, many sources that compell the categorization. Next, the three remaining un-topic-banned editors and their admin will arrive to say, "but there is doubt! there might not be unanimity! Perhaps we cannot (alas! so sad!) say "conspiracy theory" -- we might say "possible conspiracy theory" or "alleged conspiracy theory as reported in misguided but reliable sources". And we will spend another five thousand words debating the point, wind up again with two or three treks to AN/I and a trip to discretionary sanctions with WikiTrout for all. In the end, as Aquillion usefully captures, New York Magazine describes today at Wikipedia precisely: conspiracy theories that seemed to claim, among other things ... that an indie developer named Zoe Quinn had slept her way to positive coverage. Enough. This has got to stop. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Mark, I request that you cease this battleground and inflammatory behaviour. The disparity between Aquillion's and your response is telling, Aquillion looked at the sources, while Mark targeted editors who haven't even commented yet! starship.paint ~ regal 03:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Mark please calm down, it seems you are attacking people who have not participated in discussion yet. Retartist (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC) We aren't pals, Retartist: it's Dr. Bernstein to you, thank you, or Mark Bernstein if you're a member of the Society of Friends. Thanks. See following comment which applies equally to you.MarkBernstein (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC) "I did not hit her! It’s not true! It’s bullshit! I did not! Oh, hi Mark." What? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡ °) Retartist (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict)The pattern has been unrelenting for days on end. It's really interesting that starship shows up a few minutes after another user, one who makes the same arguments in the same tone, is topic-banned, and complains just after asserting in the section above that he made one revert (I recall two) and that it's perfectly reasonable to change "False sexual allegations" to "Sexual allegations" because they probably did have sex! For crying out loud: do you folks have no decency? This pattern of edits has been unrelenting for days -- one BLP violation followed by an insinuation followed by a slow, slow retreat, fighting every inch of the way. Yes, I'm angry. (No reason to think starship's a sock: we all know they've been coordinating offsite and banned DS apparently defied the topic ban when issued to coordinate their offsite rendezvous). MarkBernstein (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Dr. @MarkBernstein:, please stop with these insinuations about me. You recall me making two reverts... go and check! You claim that I argued that it's perfectly reasonable to change "False sexual allegations" to "Sexual allegations" - well I did not do that, I was only protesting the labeling of "highly disruptive" to well-meaning editors - I judged that from reading the talk page discussion which seemed reasonable. And just because they've been coordinating offsite, so I'm one of them? A meatpuppet? Nope, I am not. I am not even a gamer. I've made good contributions to Wikipedia... the paranoia leaves me extremely insulted. starship.paint ~ regal 08:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC) You seem to be quite angry at this subject, I don't know why. How is me commenting on an user talk "colluding", you know these are serious claims right? That guy was topic-banned for NOTFORUM which is to say least, minor and banning for 90 days is fairly questionable, and I didn't know he was topic-banned when talking to him. In any case, those sources don't label the movement itself as a conpiracy theory, they just state SOME of their claims are, catogorizing the article as a conpiracy theoriy makes the whole controversy sound like a conspiracy theory when there are well documented concerns on the article itself like GameJournosPro and the sites in question acknowledging this, hence multiple policy changes and disclosures. In any case my concern is when was it discussed, when did an editor get approval to add this, it seems like a sneaky attempt at making this more one sided. Loganmac (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Hey guys, just a suggestion, if you're getting angry just take some time out. Have a break. Go for a walk. Come back when you're a bit more settled. We all get frustrated from time to time but life is too short to get angry editing an article. Jgm74 (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If that many sources use variations on "conspiracy theory" wording that category should probably stay. I think there's less of a case to be made for the "Social Justice" category though. This article is ridiculously out of place in that category page, and that category seems really bizarre for this article. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 05:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

the relation is the "anti social justice" motivations and actions as described by as many sources. is "anti social justice" a cat? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The US bit is totally wrong. There's been quite a bit of coverage from British sources, and a reasonable number of nonenglish articles. HalfHat 16:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove Category:Conspiracy_theories_in_the_united_states and replace with Category:Conspiracy_theories based on the large coverage from nonUS sources and lack of commentry from them saying it's a US topic. HalfHat 16:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Oppose as Category:Conspiracy theories based on the large coverage from nonUS sources and lack of commentry from them saying it's a US topic doesn't exist, whereas Category:Conspiracy theories in the United States does. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I meant Remove "Category:Conspiracy_theories_in_the_united_states" and replace with "Category:Conspiracy_theories" based on the large coverage from nonUS sources and lack of commentry from them saying it's a US topic. HalfHat 20:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Funny, I read it the same way as Technical 13. Halfhat, your proposal seems reasonable and has my support. starship.paint ~ regal 09:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• support changing to broader "conspiracy theories" cat - i have never met a conspiracy theory that found an international boarder something it didnt want to hop and they nearly all end up with "international bankers" or "CIA and KGB". In this case we have the international scholar organization DIGRA based in Sweden and BMW based in Germany. Sarkeesian is a Canadian American and Quinn live(s)(d) in Canada. Yiannopoulos is British. There seems little that makes this limited to "United States". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agree I'm not convinced the category is necessary, but if we are going to have it then the online nature of the movement precludes it from being strictly limited to the United States. Muscat Hoe (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Am reopening this request, my initial requestion was misunderstood (which I accept the blame for), of the 3 replies since clarification all have agreed with the change, and they include users that generally don't. If this was premature sorry, I'm still new to this.. HalfHat 16:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, I'm sorry, I misread it. So, you want it to be in Category:Conspiracy theories instead of Category:Conspiracy theories in the United States. My apologies. In the future, it is usually best to link to the category you want to change to avoid confusion. You can do this by either prefixing the category name with a colon (:) like [[:Category:Conspiracy theories]] or you can use the {{Cl}} template like {{Cl|Conspiracy theories}}. Anyways, I have no objection to this change. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of Halfhat's recent edits in the draft

I made this revert (which in retrospect could probably have been less wholesale) because the effect is to remove or downplay references to sexism and misogyny in the characterisation of certain harassment in the article's lead. This is already well attested in the sources and discussed in detail in the body of the article. I would ask all editors, at this well developed stage of editing, to please not make such drastic changes without careful consideration of the facts we are describing. --TS 14:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The intent was to make it more clinical and less emotional. I'll review what I've done to see if I went about it the right way. HalfHat 14:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

What significant facts did I remove? They seemed to me to convey little other than opinion and emotion, maybe removal was wrong, I probably should have came up with a different wording. HalfHat 14:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem is these two edits. If we want to be more neutral in the wording I think we can do better then just deleting the wording (something like 'widely seen as or reported as etc...) — Strongjam (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't too sure what actual information they were trying to convey. HalfHat 14:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Trying to describe the nature of the harassment (i.e. gender based threats and insults, with some anti-feminist rhetoric thrown in.) — Strongjam (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

While we talk this out would you be willing to cut the word severe? I don't see how this at all benefits the conveying of the facts? HalfHat 15:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm more attached to severe then I am to misogynistic. The level of harassment is notable (it's probably the only reason this article is on Wikipedia.) I think we can do better then misogynistic though, I read it as a description of the type of harassment, but I realize others read it as a description of intent. — Strongjam (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest using gendered. My problem with severe is that it sounds like it's saying how bad it is. We could use weasel words of course. HalfHat 15:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

only if we toss out what all of the reliable sources have determined. We are not going to do that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I was going to suggest gender-based. Instead of severe we could use something like Quinn was then subjected to large amount of gender-based harassment ..., but I think we can just go with severe or intense I believe either one is used in our sources. For the second edit was thinking we could rewrite Often expressly anti-feminist and frequently misogynistic, these attacks heightened discussion of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community. with These attacks often include anti-feminist and misogynistic rhetoric and have heightened discussion of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community.? Trying to avoid assigning motives and stick to the contents of the attacks. Not sure about the word rhetoric though, I also thought sentiment might work. Or we could weasel word it a bit and say something like These attacks often include what is reported as ..., but I'm not a big fan of that. — Strongjam (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Why would we not cover the motives when the reliable sources do? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually fine with it as-is. Just trying to suggest alternative wording that I'd also find acceptable. — Strongjam (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

For one thing I'm not sure the various new articles really have much weight on the complex issue of intent and motives. It's not been studied in a court of law or widely accepted psychology/sociology papers yet. The words they use are not always suitable for us because they can be more emotionally loaded, this can be used to convey opinion. HalfHat 16:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

A reason to consider not making a judgement on the motives is because we're trying to write a neutral encyclopedia article on the topic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

a neutral article at Wikipedia is one that presents what the reliable sources have determined about the subject. So do you have actually policy based rationale? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not new here. You want to include reliable source opinion on the topic, others are arguing, perhaps rightly and perhaps not, that the opinion from reliable sources be left out for neutrality reasons. If that's unreasonable, it's on you to explain why that opinion deserves to be reflected instead of a simple neutral accounting. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

If you are not new here, i dont understand why you keep attempting to push the position that "well, even though all of the reliable sources say X, we should say Y instead." WP:OR / WP:V / WP:UNDUE are all pretty damn clear that that is NOT what we do and NOT how we achieve ""neutrality". Unless you have some sekrit content policy that supports your vision, its not gonna happen and you need to stop wasting everyone's time and all these poor poor pixels. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

These Hitler comparisons need to stop; it's not productive and is inflammatory. Either quit or be sanctioned. Dreadstar ☥ 07:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Because you are wrong. We don't agree with people. Basically all RSes say Hitler was evil, but we do not. HalfHat 20:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC) back to the "but Hitler!" ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Back to dismissing valid argument because of the frequency they're used instead of addressing the points? HalfHat 12:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC) "but Hitler" is not a valid argument. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC) There is no reason that arguments that make reference to Hitler are necessarily invalid. HalfHat 14:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Actually, there is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC) In most cases Godwin's law applies in the sense that the discussion would be circling the drain, but the application here is to compare how we (WP) have covered other topics where there is a clear public opinion that swings one way, and note the tone and neutrality that those articles take - no article on a controversial or hated figure or group comes out speaking of the public opinion's of a person/group in WP's voice, but instead clearly assigning where the public opinion comes from, or holding off on criticizing the group/person until later in the article, sourcing all that. Take for example Westboro Baptist Church, which the first two sentences immediately speak to the negative impression it has but using language to clearly establisht that that is how the public sees it and not as a fact (eg we don't say "The church is a hate group" but instead "The church is widely described as a hate group", keeping WP impartial to the matter). The same logic and approach must apply here. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC) You clearly have no understanding of Godwin's Law. Firstly it says someone will make a Nazi comparison (e.g. "That's what Hitler thought"), not that all arguments that refer to Hitler (and certainly not his article) are invalid. And so my argument has not been refuted. HalfHat 16:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC) I'm not sure why you're telling me I'm trying to push any position, as I'm not the one trying to make a value judgement on any issue here. Everything you've linked appears to agree with me, you don't seem to understand what I'm saying (since you think I want to go against the sources, which I do not), and your tone here is not helpful or collaborative in nature. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC) I would support your suggestions. Quinn was then subjected to large amount of gender-based harassment ... is not perfect though, "gender-based harassment" is a little ambiguous, but improvement not perfection. How about "harassment targeting her gender"? I don't notice any issues with These attacks often include anti-feminist and misogynistic rhetoric and have heightened discussion of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community. Alright, lets wait for a bit more feedback as I suppose this will be contentions. I'm still a little tepid about "gender-based harassment", I agree it seems ambiguous and I don't want to white-wash or downplay anything. — Strongjam (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Yeah it's tough to get the balance between not downplaying, and not making them overly loaded. HalfHat 18:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC) I believe that gender based harassment would be appropriate. The article should be focused, not based on strong non-neutral wording. Tutelary (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC) please provide sources that call this "gender based harassment" that are on an equivalent reliability and number as those that use "misogynistic harassment" - otherwise this is going no where. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Yeah, I'm pretty luke-warm on the 'gender-based harassment' phrasing (I know I suggested it..) We'd probably be violating WP:SYNTH by using it, and I think we're best leaving it as-is unless someone can come up with better phrasing. If NPOV is a concern then we can always assign the view to the sources instead. I would be interested in feedback for the second suggestion, or maybe that's best left to another section. — Strongjam (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC) We're not limited to using the exact phrasing from the sources. HalfHat 20:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC) While we are not "limited" to the language of the sources, when the sources are OVERWHELMINGLY utilizing particular terminology and similarly overwhelmingly NOT using a particular other terminology, there needs to be some great rationale for us to use the alternative, and some bogus hand wave at "neutrality" is not that rationale - NPOV does not in any way promote "when all of the sources view something as X, we should present it as Y". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC) That's a total strawman. The problem with that term is that it is loaded and implies opinion. HalfHat 21:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC) I suggest that we stay with the original wording, which is a correct summary of the overwhelming opinion of reliable sources, as expressed in the body of the article. --TS 01:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC) The problem is that while "severe" harassment can certainly be supported without quotes (we have plenty of reliable documented facts about this), "misogynistic" can't be - that's how its been characterized widely, certainly, but it's also an observation; stating it factually is heading into "weasel word" territory where we would normally need a source to be clear about that, but we really don't want to flood the lead with sources again. The current wording Quinn was then subjected to severe misogynistic harassment, including false accusations that the relationship had led to positive coverage of Quinn's game. A number of gaming industry members supportive of Quinn were also subjected to harassment, threats of violence, and the malicious broadcasting of personally identifiable information about them (doxxing); some of them fled their homes. The targets were mostly women, and included Quinn, feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian, and indie game developer Brianna Wu. can be restated without losing anything but staying in a better impartial WP voice for the lead (where we want to avoid anything close to that) with Quinn was then was falsely accused of using her relationship to receive positive coverage of her game. Simultaneously, she and a number of gaming industry members that supported here against these claims were the subject of a severe harassment campaign by online users under the Gamergate banner, including threats of violence and the malicious broadcasting of personally identifiable information about them (doxxing), and forced some to flee their homes. The targets of this harassment were mostly female, including Quinn, feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian, and indie game developer Brianna Wu, leading the industry and international media to broadly condemn the harassment attacks as sexist and misogynistic. Note that this clearly states where what we would consider "weasel words" originate from which can clearly be ID'd in the body with sources. All the same info and key words are there, but just where there can be slippage into opinion, it's clear where it came from. --MASEM (t) 02:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Gamergate is rooted in misogyny, as borne out by reliable sources. We can't move away from that. Tarc (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC) That is the press's wide opinion, but only opinion. There is no factual evidence of what started GG. --MASEM (t) 02:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Verifiability, not truth. The press says it is rooted in misogyny, we report what they say. Tarc (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC) "Gamergate is misogynistic" and "Gamergate is claimed to by misogynistic" are both verified statements, but one is impartial while the other speaks something that is a clear opinion in WP's voice. --MASEM (t) 03:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Once again, our articles reflect the mainstream, predominant viewpoint of reliable sources and relegate fringe viewpoints to lesser prominence, if any. It is indisputable that the mainstream, predominant viewpoint about Gamergate is that it's rooted in misogyny. Our article must reflect that truth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC) We reflect balance and weight, but not tone and emotion as we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. --MASEM (t) 03:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC) It is a fact, verifiable in reliable sources, not a "tone" or "emotion," that Gamergate was rooted in misogyny. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Alleging that Gamergate is rooted in misogyny is using a contentious label and requires attribution to the source(s). Muscat Hoe (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC) No, it's not contentious — it's the effectively-unanimous conclusion of reliable sources. Views to the contrary are, at this point, fringe. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Views to the contrary were never part of my argument so fringe is not in play here. This is about how we ascribe the misogynist label. If RS weren't nearly unanimous we would avoid usage altogether due to contentious labeling (and it is contentious considering "bigot" is listed as a prime example - I doubt anyone would argue that "misogyny" doesn't fall under the umbrella of bigotry). However since sources are widespread we can use it but it necessitates in-text attribution per the guideline. Muscat Hoe (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Are you really sure that "The New York Times, The Guardian, The Irish Times, Newsweek, Time, The New Yorker, The Washington Post, The LA Times, Gawker, Salon,Le Monde, On The Media, Australian Broadcast Company, BBC, CNN, NPR, The Hindu, Forbes, SBS, Boston Globe, Fast Company, Huffington Post, Ars Technica, ESPN, KQED, Mother Jones, Fortune, Vox, Inside Higher Ed, The Oregonian, The Journal Times, The Independent, The Telegraph, The International Business Times and every other major media identify gamergate as misogynistic. CHS says its just boys being boys. " is better? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC) I can't help but say that I don't think identify is a good choice of word. HalfHat 16:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC) "insinuate"? "suggest"? "propose"? "liken"? "hint"? "theorize"? or is there some other watered-down term you would propose? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Or we could follow policy and say something like stated. HalfHat 17:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC) No need for a laundry list. The point is it's better to write "The media has described Gamergate as misognyistic" opposed to "Gamergate is misogynistic". In the latter, Wikipedia would be taking the side of a contentious, albeit popular opinion, while the former we would be describing it and remain more impartial. Muscat Hoe (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Without any actual sourcing indicating gamergate is not misogynistic, WP:ASSERT we follow the sources and do not willy wolly around the overwhelming evidence and interpretation. WP:FRINGE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Is there any RSs that say Hitler is not evil? But that doesn't mean Wikipedia should share the opinion he is. HalfHat 18:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Yeah, that's a bogus argument. We might be able to say, factually, "the pattern of harassment is misogynistic" in WP's voice, because of the clear evidence it targetted women, and in a hostile manner, but there is no evidence beyond the claims made by the press that GG is misogynistic - no one has connected which persons did the harassing and if these people were truly misogynistic. It's an opinion, a very possible truth, but one we can't report as fact. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC) "We took Gamergate into the lab where it registered 137 on the Lépine Misogyny Scale". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC) That argument works against you. It agrees with it being opinion and that it should not be said in Wikipedia's voice.HalfHat 18:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC) It doesn't matter if the people were. The actions were, and those actions were associated with Gamergate. The RS's have noted this and so can wikipedia. Hustlecat do it! 18:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Additionally: "the actions were misogynistic" is in RSs, so it is verifiable. No one can verify whether particular people are "truly misogynistic" in this case. Hustlecat do it! 18:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC) No, that's not true. The harassment was done by people under the GG hashtag/banner. At the same time, we have a number of people that are using the GG hashtag/banner to try to talk about ethics. There is no evidence that all or any the harassers are the same people talking about ethics, given the sourceable fact that there are groups that are not connected to the ethics discussions using GG to harassment for the purposes of just stirring the pot. We can say, factually, the actions under the GG banner are misogynistic harassment, but it is not acceptable as a neutral entity to make the leap of logical that the GG movement, or all GG members, are misogynistic; we can definitely put in the bulk of sourcing that has the popular opinion of that nature (itself which leads to the whole "but ethics!" complaints), but in WP's voice we cannot take the opinionated stance that GG the movement or the people involved are misogynistic; we will absolutely reflect that opinion as it is weighted heavily by the sources, but we must keep it out of WP's voice. Yes, the actions are verifyable to a point we could probably safely call them "misogynistic" in WP's, but as you just said, there is no way to verify which people are, and thus we absolutely cannot make that jump per WP:V. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC) When all you got as a "movement" is a hashtag, you get all that is done under your name. And the only thing that resulted in any coverage was the misogynistic actions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC) It is not appropriate to trivialize how GG is described as a movement by some high quality RS, like Time, the Age, and the Washington Post (whereas some other sources do question if it is a movement, but still acknowledge that it might be a movement, and we can add their complaints to that effect). It is clearly defined as a movement throughout RSes, even though we will include all the criticism that its lack of organization, goals, and its tactics and its apparent ties to harassment to beg if it really is a movement. --MASEM (t) 22:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC) [1] we have been through this. for every instance where the source uses it, vaguely, with hesitation and qualification because there is not a better word, there are several sources that specifically call it out as not anything like an actual movement. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Which means we should call it a movement, and then include the strong criticism against that as appropriate, just like Westboro BC is called a church or Scientology is called a religion. To refuse to call it a movement is twisting the sources against an impartial view of the matter. --MASEM (t) 01:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Hitler is evil/Did evil things is easy to find RSs for, doesn't mean Wikipedia should say those thngs. HalfHat 18:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC) What is your obsession with Hitler? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC) It's just the useful article to use as an example. (BTW I messed up the formatting and can't remember what I was originally responding to so I moved it all the way back) HalfHat 20:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC) I dont really see how. A [specific individual] of [worldwide importance] that has been the [subject of many years] of [very intense scholarship] vs a [recent] [rabble] of[minimal import or impact] where the [sourcing is still primarily non-academic] . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Exactly because of the current [sourcing is still primarily non-academic], we should not be reporting the media's opinions as factual. Yes, we still should report the media's opinions because they are reliable sources, as long as we qualify them as opinions. starship.paint ~ regal 00:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there any objection, or suggestion for improvement, to Strongjam's suggestion of replacing, Often expressly anti-feminist and frequently misogynistic, these attacks heightened discussion of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community. with These attacks often include anti-feminist and misogynistic rhetoric and have heightened discussion of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community.? I support it because it reads much less loaded and more encyclopaedic, and puts more emphasis on the facts. HalfHat 16:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Support - yes, it sounds better, thank you. starship.paint ~ regal 23:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Unnecessary adverbs, sounds fine without them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I've given it a go in the draft article. I think it's fairly non-controversial, but no hurt feelings if it's reverted and needs more discussion. — Strongjam (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I think a better wording from "These attacks often include anti-feminist and misogynistic rhetoric and have heightened discussion of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community." would be "These attacks often include both anti-feminist and misogynistic rhetoric, with the direct result being heightened discussion of sexism and misogyny as it exists in the gaming community."Kitsunedawn (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

New Businessweek Article

[2] Focuses more on Sarkeesian (so this can filter into her article and the Tropes vs Women one) but there might be a few details around Sarkeesian's harassment to be included. Note that this also includes EA's statement on the harassment (they agree with ESA's statement about), but notes even this late in the event that few other major publishers have commented on the matter (I believe a few other sources have noted the lack of voice from the AAA pubs on the entire situation). --MASEM (t) 15:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added some details for the threats to the draft, and dropped that "Sarkeesian reported ..." bit, we don't have to weasel word it. — Strongjam (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to the change, but I don't think it qualifies as weasel words. Aren't they when you say someone thinks/says something without saying who (or similar). Again I'm not arguing with the change. HalfHat 16:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah you're probably right, it's attributed so not really weasel words. Just seems odd to attributed it to the victim, almost an expression of doubt I guess? Especially when we consider the "false flag" claims we cover in the next section — Strongjam (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the important thing here is what is nicer to read. As long as you don't say something like "claimed" it should be okay, but I see where you are coming from with the context of falseflag claims. HalfHat 16:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Citations in the Lede

In regards to this change. I remember this was discussed earlier, and I believe the consensus was that the citations weren't needed. Generally per WP:CITELEAD the lede would have redundant citations from the body, but on controversial statements may need citations (on a case-by-case basis.) Are there any particular claims here that need citations? I don't think all of them do, but there may be a few. — Strongjam (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

there is not a fucking thing about GG or the article that is not "controversial" - source every damn statement and bypass stupid pointless arguments about sourcing and leave the discussions to be about actually meaningful things like content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

sigh you're probably right. There are lots of statements that shouldn't be controversial, but we get constant discussions about them. If we cited every source that says it's concerns misogyny and sexism it would be a very long list (didn't you write a list for that in the talk page yesterday?) — Strongjam (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

For reference previous discussions on this topic Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 12#Last paragraph in the lead. General consensus at the time seems to be only cite direct quotes. Of course consensus can change. I'm not adverse to some citations, but I don't think we necessarily need to pile it on. — Strongjam (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:LEAD guidelines, the Gamergate controversy article should have the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view and the lead should be sourced as The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. And as far as I know there isn't any editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. Since the topic is controversial, the lead should be extremely well sourced with reliable sourced. --Zakkarum (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC) — Added on behalf of @Zakkarum: by Strongjam (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

No, we do not need citations in the lead, certainly not to satisfiy the urges of every Tom, Dick, and Naysayer that wanders by. We had to hash this out years ago at Barack Obama, when the article was under siege by birthers; at one point the article had a citation right on the "born in Honolulu" line of paragraph 1, til saner heads prevailed. We don't need lead citations for this article either, as long as what is said in the lead IS cited and supported in the body. Tarc (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:LEADCITE, citations are to be managed by a consensus of editors and whether the conduct is controversial or not to garner whether to put one or not. Specifically, the regards about misoginy and the guise of harassment should be sourced, the Zoe Quinn remarks, mostly women remarks and the threats to the 'gamer' identity. Otherwise, rest can stay without citations. Tutelary (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the lede present w/o cite works (give or take), nearly all the claims are to a degree reasonably found by reviewing the appropriately named sections. It would be more a problem if we did not have a reasonable organization at the current time so that a claim made in the lede could not be easily figured out. "cn" tags in the lede should not be used to challenge the points made in that given the current state of the article (though wording improvement for impartiality will help but that's a different discussion). --MASEM (t) 20:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent IDGA "scandal"

GamerGate block list bad for business as game devs, journalists and fried chicken linked to online harassment

DigiTimes reported on the recent scandal that IGDA endorsed "A Twitter tool to block some of the worst offenders in the recent wave of harassment", which "has been criticized for its crude algorithm" and "generates a high number of false positives".

They also report on the fears of the developers:

'However, the most significant impact is being felt in the games development community itself. Several developers have already come forward to express their concerns that being incorrectly branded for actions they have not committed could have long lasting, if not career ending, consequences. And these fears could have merit. Even before IGDA lent its support to the block list, some developers had floated the idea that the list could be used to perform "background checks" on future job applicants. Also back in October, Ernest W Adams, the founder of IGDA notably tweeted, "If you're an indie developer and you are supporting #GamerGate, watch what you say. Your future business is at stake."'

Furthermore, they mention the "Give Voice to the Voiceless" campaign (probably less interesting?). Racuce (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Add this to the article. --Artman40 (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

A tool that never worked and nobody used and was covered only by a niche press. Given the extreme length of the article already, what is less important that would be removed to make room for this? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems wrong to claim that nobody used it when it was adopted by ones like the IGDA and the Raspberry Pi Foundation. I do agree that there is hardly space for this to be included, considering its lack of importance. Eldritcher (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It has significant importance, no matter if anti-GamerGate sites and Wikipedia users covered it or not. --Artman40 (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I support including it if it gets more attention from the industry that it affects, or more significant details (f.ex. people being denied employment as a result of it) appear. Eldritcher (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely a detail that without add'l coverage, really would be difficult to include. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If anything, I'd include a mention of "The Voice to the Voiceless" campaign under "Diversity and the debate over #NotYourShield" as a response from the users taking part. Eldritcher (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is already too long and includes too much back-and-forth over relatively minor claims-and-counterclaims. The purpose of an encyclopedia article isn't to cover every single event that happened related to the subject; rather, we're supposed to provide a broad overview. I would generally say that (given the level of sourcing used for the rest of the article, and the massive amount of stuff we already have from major sources) if something hasn't received significant coverage in a major mainstream media publication, it probably isn't worth inclusion. Otherwise, we'll end up with a disjointed list of everything that's recently been getting upvoted in Reddit or wherever, which isn't likely to produce a readable article. --Aquillion (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

And failing to provide good accurate overview, relying on news sites which cite each other and where facts don't match on what the primary sources have to say. http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20141126VL200.html?chid=8&mod=3&q=GAMERGATE Also, this is not an insignificant site. --Artman40 (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Digitimes is actually a fairly controversial source. See this and this. I'd love to find something from this year about their standards, but the fact that there isn't anything might be telling, too. It's not the worst source to be suggested for this article, sure, but in a page that is already choked to the gills with quotes and sources for every bit of minutia, this seems unnecessary. Parabolist (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

This is merely a repetition of the standard GamerGate mantra, "All of the media is biased except for the sources that agree with us." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It is very arguable whether many outlets involved in the controversy, such as Gawker, can be called unbiased. Eldritcher (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Then you'll be glad to know that we don't cite Gawker or Kotaku as sources in this article except where they are directly quoted or specifically relevant to a particular claim involving those sites. Instead, we cite sources such as The New York Times, Time, The Washington Post, New Statesman, National Public Radio, Columbia Journalism Review, etc. If your claim is that all of those sources are biased too, then you're simply at odds with how this project works. We base our article content on the predominant viewpoints expressed in mainstream reliable sources. Wikipedia is not an alternative media platform to put forward a message that you believe is being ignored by mainstream sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I am glad, but my response was just to your generalization. I brought up an example of an arguably biased media source to point out that all negative media isn't indeed free of bias. I am not making a claim that most of them are biased. It is positive whenever sources like the ones you listed are used, instead of ones like Boing Boing and Buzzfeed that are currently present on the article. Eldritcher (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking over the piece I would say that it seems difficult to say where this could fit into the article. Although this seems to have arisen as a result of the Gamergate controversy, it is only tangentially related to it. If it belongs anywhere I would be sticking it into an open letter to every company in the world explaining that this is why you really need to do your homework before implementing something, beyond that it does not seem to improve the article, or provide clarity as to what the Gamergate controversy is.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The BuzzFeed citation is present to provide an example of one of the "End of the Gamer Identity" opinion columns which has been criticized by Gamergate supporters, so that readers can view that side of the argument, much as we provide links to Erik Kain's criticism of those columns on Forbes.com. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Our goal, as an encyclopedia, is not 'accuracy' in the sense that you mean. It isn't to universally repeat what every single potential primary source says. It is, rather, to give an accurate overview of what the most reputable sources say on a subject; of course this means covering a variety of points of view, but we can only say what the reputable sources do. Otherwise, every editor with an axe to grind could come into a controversial article, flood it with whatever cherry-picked sources they've dug up that say what they want it to say, and justify the fact that they are giving eg. a random blog post weight equal to the New York Times by saying that they believe the blog post tells the truth and the Times doesn't. We can cite relatively minor publications when it's to establish their views, but even then, with something as noisy as this I would usually want to establish that their views are relevant or representative by citing a reliable source first (since there's a huge number of people commenting, and the article has sort of suffered from people throwing in every single commentator in order to fire point-counterpoints at each other by proxy.) And in this case, it seems to me that digitimes is neither a reliable source nor one whose views on the topic are particularly noteworthy, so it shouldn't be used in the article -- especially given that your only real argument for including them seems to be "they're telling the truth and the current sources aren't", which, taken from the other direction, amounts to saying "we should rely on them because I agree with them." Obviously that would make them seem reputable to you, but we have to rely on their prominence and history, neither of which point to them being a good source for this subject when compared to the level of sourcing we're using elsewhere. --Aquillion (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll: Replace current main article with draft and discussion about the draft

I'm just wanting to see what people think of this, as well as a discussion as to how successful the draft has been at making improvements, and preventing damage. I also find this format to be more useful as it tends to stop an argument between a few obscuring the input of the other contributors. HalfHat 11:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll

• Support I think more work needs to be done on trimming the article and dealing with the quote farming, but we shouldn't wait until it's perfect. — Strongjam (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion about "Operation Disrespectful Nod"

We should elborate the part "members launched a campaign to convince ad providers to pull support from sites critical of Gamergate". There are sources that describe Gawker becoming the target largely because of the bullying comments. My proposed edit was "members launched a campaign to convince ad providers to pull support from sites that allegedly condone bullying and are critical of Gamergate" and I feel like the edit is small and relevant enough to be included despite us trying to bring the article down in size. Eldritcher (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't the bullying claims apply only to Gawker, also I moved to a different section, I was to keep my discussion general. HalfHat 16:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be mainly Gawker, but they have also been the primary target during the last month or so. It seems dishonest to not include the detail. I'd be fine with noting that the bullying backlash was against Gawker specifically, but that might take too much space and we're already lacking. Eldritcher (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

the most reliable of the sources you list [3] says that it is a "joke about bullying" that caused people to get their panties all twisted and become annoying little shits. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It was not perceived as a joke by those in GamerGate so their reason for targeting the advertisers was to still go against bullying. Also, regarding that Twitter link, haven't you yourself said that linking websites like that is pointless even on the talk page because their source value is nonexistent? If you want to use it to support your argument, you need to allow the same from others. Eldritcher (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought GG was about journalistic ethics? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't think journalists posting support for bullying is unethical? Regardless, can we get back on topic? Eldritcher (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I see the joke as hysterically satirical albiet "tone deaf" ; but not connecting with "ethics" in any meaningful way, nor as a personal twit as connecting with "journalism" in any way. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I think what we have is just fine. Stating that Gawker "allegedly supports bullying" based upon a tweet that was in bad taste, but was an obvious joke, is unsupported nonsense. The sources you have listed are marginal, at best, compared to the existing sources we have in the section. If anything, that section should be trimmed down at this point, as it's a bit of WP:RECENTISM, really. The media has stopped paying attention and it doesn't seem to have materially affected Gawker. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

This was not a single tweet, but multiple tweets. Other people from the network also showed support. It received a very large focus from GamerGate. Furthermore, it seems odd to say that the media has stopped paying attention to this when several articles on the topic have been released during the last four days alone. As for Gawker not having been materially affected, an article by Gawker itself states that they have lost thousands and could even lose millions. Full quote: "I've been told that we've lost thousands of dollars already, and could potentially lose thousands more, if not millions." Eldritcher (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You say that "it received a very large focus from Gamergate" — that may be so, but that doesn't appear to have translated into anything actually meaningful. Gawker wrote that post a month ago, there's been no follow-up coverage and the matter appears to be a dead letter as far as the sources go. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Considering that the contacting of the advertisers is featured on this article and this is the most high profile aspect of it, it should be included. Eldritcher (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking, then. We already include a discussion of the fact that Gamergate supporters have contacted advertisers. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The description is very lacking because it overlooks the main reason for contacting Gawker's advertisers. Eldritcher (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Considering how many times I have see that issue about space, why not just split the article and leave the important details on this page? --Super Goku V (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Split the article into...what? We don't do preferred versions around here. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 29 November 2014

Nothing to see here, move along.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the second paragraph of this article, it ambiguously mentions a person named Quinn. I would put a after the first mention of this "Quinn." Robbie0630 (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC) It says "Zoe Quinn" in the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph. What are you talking about? Tarc (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Oh, I am so sorry for not seeing that. Robbie0630 (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Scrap/Rewrite?

With all the changes that have happened over the course of the movement, would a scrap of the article as it is now, and a complete rewrite (Taking much of the talking points and notes into consideration) be warranted? I'm not the best writer, but I'll see what I can come up with just to field the idea and link it somewhere when I'm not at work. (Which I am now.) Kitsunedawn (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have thought about that, and someone has put work into a possible one, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaciemonster/gamergate . I had some early involvement but ended up going back to working on the main. HalfHat 14:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)