Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

A tricky problem (another concern)

Gamergate claims to be a movement started essentially as a loose-knit advocacy group against a number of journalists alleged to have engaged in dishonest behavior and collusion. Regardless if one thinks the points are valid, it seems a bit asinine that the very same journalists being criticized by this movement AS dishonest essentially get to be the sources used to write the wikipedia article. Imagine if there was a scandal in the mainstream press where some random blogger got a whole bunch of (alleged) dirt on corruption at the WaPo, and the the article was written using the WaPo as the primary source. "There is no evidence of corruption at the WaPo!" Lasati (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see the literally dozens of previous threads on this issue. In short, no, you don't get to throw out literally every mainstream reliable source because you believe they are "biased."

Making your movement center around a conspiracy theory that The Washington Post, The Week, The Boston Globe, NPR Marketplace, The Telegraph, The Los Angeles Times, Business Insider, The Indian Express, The Independent, On the Media, Vox Media, Asian Age, The Herald Sun, Pacific Standard, etc. are all colluding and corrupt is not helping your quest for credibility. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"Hey! You guys are too "unreliable" to tell me what your movement is about, so let me show you these articles from bigger news sites, which you have no connects to, that tell me what you guys really are about!". Yes, perfect logic. Derpen (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I read them. The problem is that some freelancer involved in this thing can actively seek out, and write an article for Time, Guardian, etc... which explicitly defends their position. That doesn't really mean "according to Time..." It just means according to that person. In fact, that is the heart of the matter -- the allegations that journalists using their megaphone inappropriately and with explicit bias, and the claim from normal people who feel they have been libeled having no recourse. I would suggest if we want to genuinely be unbiased, we not cite articles written by people directly involved, regardless of the venue. Like anything Eric Kain writes is fine, because he's not involved in this. But a lot of journalists are, as are a number of gaming sites. I think in general we do need to be picky about sourcing articles when the topic is corruption in journalism. Wikipedia should not be a forum for taking sides, even implicitly. I hope you agree with that. Lasati (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Also note that when you say "YOUR SIDE" you are admitting to your own bias. Also, it's a strawman that you are attributing to me some conspiracy theory that I never talked about. Also, again with the ad hominem "your quest for credibility." Please leave personal attacks out of these things. Lasati (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Your question has been answered. We're not going to remove every reliable source because you think they're biased. Time to move on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

See, this is another strawman. I never said "remove every reliable source." I said don't source articles written by people who are personally involved. That's it. Or at least, move them to a different section. I don't know why you find that such a dangerous statement. I suspect on the OWS page you wouldn't agree to sourcing an article written by an investment banker in the WSJ and using his or her definition of what OWS stands for (regardless of which side you were sympathetic towards). This is essentially the same. Lasati (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, then list the sources used in the article that you believe to be biased. Please note that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, and we do not remove sources merely because someone thinks they're biased. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll jump in and raise two articles: Leigh Alexander's Time article, and Jenn Frank's Guardian article. Leigh writes for many of the sites that are under fire, Vice, Kotaku and RockPaperShotgun among them, and is the editor of Gamasutra. <redacted per BLP> I've questioned their inclusion before, and no one seems to be able to defend it.

Frank's article will have to be included since she's now become a story all her own, but it really shouldn't be included as a reliable source in this article. Also, she hasn't really retired, since she did write a new piece for the Guardian recently. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

We've literally been over those same two sources dozens of times now and the answer is the same every time. We aren't going to second-guess the editorial judgment of Time or The Guardian. The fact that someone writes for websites that are criticized is not remotely sufficient grounds to reject that person's writing as a reliable source. This can be hatted now.

I have redacted an entirely-unsourced and unfounded allegation about living people from your post. Do not make allegations about living people you cannot support with reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

After a third edit conflict ... "We aren't going to second-guess the editorial judgment of Time or The Guardian." That's an unwise attitude to have. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It's also our policy. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, and Time and The Guardian are both indisputable reliable sources. Your personal opinion that they are biased has no impact on whether or not they are reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

With the Jenn Frank thing, didn't a Guardian editor make some statement apologizing for not including the conflict of interest? It's not my personal opinion there was a conflict of interest, it's actually a fact. But like, clearly this is the problem with using an article written by a freelancer (who is personally involved in the issue!) in the online arm of a respectable publication, as tho it represents the publication as a whole. Lasati (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

No, actually, that's not a fact. What is a fact is that Frank included a disclosure in her column, but it was removed by Guardian editors who believed it was unnecessary. We discuss the issue in the article, and it does not render that source unusable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a compromise: how about we note that Alexander is the EIC of Gamasutra, and that she's written for RockPaperShotun, Kotaku, and Polygon? The beginning of the paragraph would read:

Leigh Alexander, Editor-at-Large of Gamasutra and writer for Kotaku, Polygon, and RockPaperShotgun, described the campaign in Time as ...

That gives better context. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem noting her specific current title at Gamasutra, but laundry-listing every media outlet they've written for is basically without precedent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Alright. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Style proposal

I have a proposal for making the article shorter and easier to read. Most sections are based on quotes from different commentators. Many of these quotes are shown in full in the article body. I think these full quotations could be summarized inline, and the full text moved to the reference. I've done one such edit here with Hoff Sommers quotation, that was quite large. There are several others that could receive the same treatment.

Quotations are important for this article, so it's better not remove the whole sentences completely, but they don't need to be within the main text; I think keeping those separate would improve the reading flow, without impacting due weight or structure. We could even have a dedicated "notes" section separate from references, in the same way that it's done with current reference 'a'. Diego (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd be a bit worried about WP:UNDUE, since some articles are heavily quoted, while others are summarised. "Hiding" the quoted articles will give the summarised articles undue weight. However, if we can manage to balance that, I have no objection. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That would give us a chance to review how many content should we include for each. I don't think current size of each quotation is directly related to WEIGHT of the references, it seems more like each editor added what they deemed relevant, based on how juicy or sassy is its content. Though I'll wait to hear more opinions. Diego (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I realize that millennials have short attention spans, but the article length is not at all long. There's no need to tuck away critical commentary behind inline citations. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sure we can get it to 140 characters. Anything longer cannot be important or worth reading.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of total length, but density. Every time a new opinion is presented, you need to read it in excruciating detail with all the 't's and the 'i's. I don't see the need to learn their opinions using the whole list of exact words they used, at least not in the main article body. Having each comment summarized would make it easier to read each section as a quick succession of ideas from varied people. Diego (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

In a nutshell

From this article which neatly summarizes both major sides http://www.littletinyfrogs.com/article/457868/Gamergate_Escalates

excerpted. Note that the perspective of GamerGate is inherently the original accusation against game journalism. this seems to be a fairly neutral summary of major viewpoints.

The #GamerGate Points include:

1. They think the gaming media is corrupt. Specifically, they think that gaming journalism is a clique that chooses what to cover and how to spin it based on their shared politics and relationships.
2. They think the big publishers buy positive coverage outright and that the little indies sleep/schmooze their way to positive coverage.
3. They are outraged at having their criticism misrepresented as misogyny
4. They strongly object to having their movement characterized based on the misbehavior of a tiny group of trolls and jerks.
5. They are angry that attempts to discuss the topic get blocked, censored, deleted, etc.
6. They are outraged at what they see as collusion in the gaming media openly attacking gamers as a bunch of “nerds” “gamers are dead” “basement dwellers”, etc.
7. They have evidence demonstrating double standards in how the gaming media treats different issues based on their politics
8. They believe that the gaming media has become infested by “Social Justice Warriors” who are using their platforms to jam their politics down the throats of people who just want to read about video games.

The opponents of #gamergate points include:

1. Any legitimate points the #gamergate movement might have had are far outweighed by the harassment and threats against outspoken women in the industry that is done in the name of #gamergate
2. They (gaming media) are outraged at being called corrupt
3. They (gaming media) are upset at the suggestion that the gaming media has some sort of organized conspiracy
4. They (general) believe gamers are inherently insular and want to shout down any attempts at reforming it.
5. They (general) believe gamers are entitled and thin-skinned, unable to show empathy or accept even mild criticism of their hobby.
6. They (gaming media) are angry that their entire profession is being mischaracterized based on poor choices made by a few
7. They (general) are very skeptical of new #gamergate claims because of the misrepresentations made during early claims
8. They believe that the “sane” people who support #gamergate are being used/tricked by the vile, misogynist core that is at the heart of #gamergate

--DHeyward (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Before anyone jumps in to say it's not a reliable source: Brad Wardell is an industry veteran. Edit: this contribution is not mine; I don't know why it wasn't tagged with the user's IP or handle. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Missed sig. Sorry. Yes, Wardell is a long time game developer. --DHeyward (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's an acceptable source for presenting Wardell's own opinion about the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's actually a neutral view from a third party with knowledge of both sides of the dispute and fairly assesses each party's views. It should be a model outline for the article as a NPOV description of the controversy. The only question, really, is how to get there. If you don't see that, you probably shouldn't be editing the article. --DHeyward (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. It's not remotely a neutral view and it's a self-published source to boot, which makes it entirely unacceptable as a source for anything except Brad Wardell's own opinion. It contains statements such as "In my mind, the balance of wrongdoing is heavily weighted on the opponents of #gamergate. Mainly, because its opponents have had a long head start of character assassination and harassment," "For that, the anti-#gamergate people started smearing me. (SJW logic: Make up allegations, use allegations as evidence, repeat)" and "You want me to quit throwing in the misdeeds of the SJW crowd in SJW faces? Then tell them to quit character assassinating me." This is literally the opposite of a neutral, reliable source. And no, sources don't have to be neutral but they do have to be reliable, and for them to be reliable they can't be self-published.

What you linked is nothing more than Brad Wardell's own personal blog, which has undergone no fact-checking or editorial processes. I remind you that we reached agreement that Zoe Quinn's Cracked.com blog was not an appropriate source for this article even for Quinn's own perspective. If that post cannot be used in this article, then there is most certainly no grounds for using this one. You cannot possibly argue that one personal blog by a game developer outweighs the literal mountain of mainstream reliable sources available. If you don't see that, you probably shouldn't be editing the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

and it is certainly not representative of how the mainstream sources have presented it, which is what we must be striving for, per policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The link is less important than the outline I excerpted. He wants to be peacemaker from his statements but his outline of the controversy (above) is a neutral outline of points held by both sides. It's a concise list of what each side is articulating and neutral coverage would articulate those points. --DHeyward (talk) 05:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The outline does not represent the mainstream coverage and so it is a non starter as a basis for anything. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Who are you to say what is considered "mainstream" and what "isn't"? What? Are you not supposed to gather facts from the other side of the argument because these apparently "bigger, better" journals say it isn't? And since when were restricted to news sites? Whoever said any of them weren't biased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derpen (talk • contribs) 21:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"In a post on his personal blog, Brad Wardell argued that the GamerGate movement is outraged at what they see as collusion in the gaming media." I'm fine with using the source in that manner. (And frankly, given the fact that Zoe Quinn's Cracked.com blog was rejected despite it being closer to a reliable source than Brad Wardell's personal blog, I think I'm being nice here.) Using it as a framework for what the article should say instead of using the umpteen squillion third-party mainstream reliable sources presented here? Not a chance. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"given the fact that Zoe Quinn's Cracked.com blog was rejected despite it being closer to a reliable source" Cracked is not anywhere near a reliable source. They're sensationalists. At least this source is trying to be sober. Willhesucceed (talk) 10:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Cracked has an actual editorial staff with at least some level of editorial review and content control. Brad Wardell's personal blog has literally none at all. So yes, Cracked is closer to what we consider to be a reliable source than Brad Wardell's personal blog is. You can't have it both ways — it is literally self-contradictory to argue that Cracked fails WP:RS because it lacks sufficient editorial controls while also arguing that Brad Wardell's personal blog meets WP:RS despite its lack of any editorial controls. That is a very obvious double standard.

And you must be kidding about Wardell "trying to be sober," right? The language used in his post speaks for itself; it is not sober, neutral or dispassionate in the least. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Cracked may have an editorial team, but it's a terrible one. They pick a salacious topic and then craft the article around it. Many, many of their articles have factual inaccuracies, too. They're not in any way reliable. Anyway, we're not here to debate Cracked's merit.

As a source on Wardell's opinion, this suffices. "Sober" is not the same as "passionless". He's obviously got reasons for his tenor. I agree it shouldn't be used as a template for the article, but I see no reason to exclude it altogether. That's all I was saying. Willhesucceed (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You're only focusing on one aspect. He characterizes views of each side. It's relevant because in articles about living people balance and getting it right is more important that just publishing. Do you disagree with the any of the statements that the points reflect each side? If that's the neutral perspective, then the goal should be to find the sources. Is there any statement or idea expressed, from either side, that is foreign to editors here? I took those 16 points because it appears all 16 are supported views. --DHeyward (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No, that's the opposite of the correct approach. We don't pick a narrative we like and then find sources to support that choice; when done with intent we call that POV-pushing. Rather, we simply look at what the best sources say and summarize their narrative(s). And this blog cannot credibly be asserted to be amongst the "best sources". CIreland (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, I ask is that list a neutral presentation of the issue given the sources people have read? This isn't a "narrative we like", it's a sum total descrition of the issue. It's also not weighted so it isn't POV pushing. Just those 16 points, 8 from each view. Does anyone disagree that those are the main points expressed from each side? --DHeyward (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I've seen all those points covered in reliable sources except:

• point 7 of the pro-GG side -I've not seen any mention of double standards nor what the GGs would consider evidence in the articles I've read-,
• and point 6 of the oppose-GG side -I have not heard about that "part taken for the whole" with respect to the journalism profession itself).

Also point pro-7 should say "they 'believe' they have evidence", and points 4,5 of the opponents side should say "'some' gamers".

I think it would be beneficial for the article to ensure that all those points are attributed to the people making them, instead of described in general, and that we make sure that WP:RSOPINION, WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:LABEL are made the core rules of style we use to write each claim. Diego (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that while most of the points on both lists are addressed, the amount they are addressed is far in weight of latter (the journalism side), and to try to use this list (even with the two points removed) to try to present an equal balance can't work. Yes, the source attempt as best a level-heading analysis, but as a SPS of a non-notable or someone not established as an expert in the field, this doesn't work for us to start with. That doesn't mean we can't touch on all the points that can be sourced, just don't expect we can do equal balance of the two sides. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The point as I see it is not to present an equal balance, is to use the bullets as a checklist to ensure that we have some coverage for each, even if it's minimal; I'd say currently we're missing 'any' mention at all for many points in the pro-GG side, even if they appeared in RSs. A single short mention could be enough to cover several of them at the same time, but it has yet to be added for some. Diego (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If you would like to use this as a guide for your personal approach to the article, feel free, but I think it's unreasonable to expect it to be formally adopted by all editors as some kind of a 'gold standard.' We're not going to include poorly-cited or minority opinions purely because they're on this 'checklist.' "Neutrality" here does not need to mean 'treating all perspectives as equally valid' but 'presenting the issue the way our sources do without injecting our own personal beliefs by giving preference to sources who present the issue the way we want it presented.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I was not thinking "gold standard" as much as "conversation starter". Diego (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct. That was my intention. These are major points of contention between both sides. It doesn't minimize the attacks generated by the controversy which have received the bulk of the attention. It does show what a neutral would likely cover as a complete article. --DHeyward (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think point 6 part taken for the whole has been expressed through adoption of more ethical requirements. Grayson's employer, for example, instituted more disclosure requirements following the disclosure of the relationship - not so much that they characterized Grayson's actions as improper but they also didn't like being blindsided. Also the Google group of professional game journalist also was listed (the list founder issued an apology for an email he wrote where he proposed an open letter supporting Zoe where all the journalists would sign it. This was ultimately rejected on ethics, whence the concerns of the few vs. many ). I have not seen evidence outlined in pro-gg 7.

Just as a quick correction, Grayson's employers did not change their policy as a result of Grayson. The (relatively minor) changes which were made happened because of issues unrelated to Grayson. - Bilby (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Opinion from me Neutral parties

Been there done that, see the multiple sections above. We represent the mainstream view. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC) - - - (Hatting this, WP:NOTFORUM. Dreadstar ☥ 03:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article simply disgusting, using COI sources such as Kotaku and Vice (since when journalist write about themselves at news sites? is this some kind of blogging?), Censoring opinion of of many people, tolerating COI opinion, and many more, no wonder Wikipedia is such a bad place now compared to old wikipedia, when Wikipedian can trace the author of article who wrote on the news sites. But don't worry I will try saving id.wikipedia, and probably many more other wikipedia so they can be a better place compared to English wikipedia, good thing I can speak many languages and use it for good purposes. I'm out.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 00:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference order issues

Someone needs to go through the article to make sure that the references are all in the proper numerical order, because with every major revision, their thrown out of order. I did a bit earlier but I can't get it done that well without a full computer.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not something to worry about until the article is stabilized. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah but it's something I kept trying to fix.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Video games journalist's opinion

Ryan Smith, writer for the Chicago tribune and the AV Club, and member of the GameJournoPros list, criticises contemporary journalism and more specifically the video games press in a self-published article. Link. There's probably stuff we can use from here. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Gamers' concerns

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

There's a lot to unpack here. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The end of the article is probably a good summary of what to take away. Quote:

I’ve attempted to dispel some of the myths that one side has been able to successfully promote in the media, and outline some of the more moderate complaints of GamerGate. To briefly summarize, they are:

• The rise of moral crusaders, with little to no opposition from the gaming media.
• Accusations that gamers are “anti-inclusive,” despite ample evidence that this is not the case.
• Demonization, mischaracterization, and abuse from members of the press.
• An inability to discuss any of the above issues on many popular online communities.
• A press that fails to report on both sides of a contentious story.

At this point I think there are enough sources for each of these points that they each deserve to be addressed. Perhaps we need another heading, "Gamers' concerns" or something, as a prelude to "Legitimacy of concerns". Willhesucceed (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Possibly. I think the history and origins of GamerGate need to come before that in the article though. Since many of the criticisms relate to GamerGates origins and activities a fair amount of critisism is probably going to come before the second section you propose. Artw (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think an article from a tech blog that claims to 'dispel myths' published by high quality, mainstream sources is enough to merit a whole new 'pro-gamergate' section. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you guys want to believe that the "bigger, better, reliable" news sites accurately portray this entire movement because of their titles of "bigger" and "better", makes me believe you guys are quite biased to this entire issue. It isn't like we, the activists of this movement, have any PRs, leaders, or main public speakers to officially say what we are for. We are just simply a faceless movement. But to simply dismiss other smaller sources as "farce" for the much larger news sites because they're opinion speaks the loudest just shows how, again, biased you guys are with this entire subject. We are just regular people. We don't pour our money and lives into a movement of anonymity. So, again, I don't understand this refusal to leave this "safe bubble" of the bigger news sources, who, of course, cannot be simply claimed without sin of bias because of their status.Derpen (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you understand Wikipedia, then. Our mission isn't to dispel some perceived "bias" in mainstream sources. Our policy, in fact, dictates that our content reflect the positions taken by the majority of mainstream sources. We are not an alternative media outlet designed to promote or disseminate ideas or positions that are out of the mainstream. Our reliance primarily on reliable, secondary sources is fundamental to the concept of Wikipedia as encyclopedia, not as alt-media.

tl;dr: It is not "biased" to believe that Wikipedia must adhere to its core content policies in discussing the Gamergate controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

...as well as the views taken by those opposing mainstream sources, if those positions are identified by reliable sources as is the case here. Never forget that neutrality does require us to cover *all* significant viewpoints, even if they don't need to be given the same weight, they still have to be given *some* weight. That's policy too. Diego (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say they shouldn't be covered and I think this source has a place in the article. I simply noted the fundamental conflict between what Derpen believes and what our policy demands. We can't "leave the safe bubble" because 1. we are required to use reliable sources and 2. in articles relating to claims about living people, we are doubly required to use reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

In addition, as lone voices, we must be careful not to give their personal perspectives excessive coverage and weight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

They aren't lone, so much as minority, voices. That'll be shown when the section's written. I'll try to cobble something together. Edit: I'd also like to note that this tech blog has been referenced elsewhere, and without objection, in the article already. TaraInDC is doing that thing again where she tries to block sources she doesn't like. That's not very sporting of her. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Where have I tried to 'block' this source? I don't think that this source is enough to make the perspective you're advocating anything other than a minority position, and I don't think it's enough to base a new section on. We can't treat the information sourced to mainstream press outlets as 'myths' as this author does. You're benefiting very much from other editors' assumptions of good faith considering that you are a blatant SPA: please at least try do give others the same courtesy. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that it's a good idea to codify what the concerns are, since specific points appear over and over, and readers should understand what's being refuted (or, more accurately, being ignored in favour of the topic of sexism). Of course this is going to be the minority position. The sources dictate it's so. But you're right. I should offer you the same courtesy I'm being given. I apologise, again. I just notice you're often at hand to note why article X isn't that great, article X always (?) being an article that focuses on more than the sexism. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Spectator article

Link. The main thrust is that gamers want games to remain apolitical, and that a cabal of cultural Marxists has taken over the video games press. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that any article referring to those with legitimate concerns about the depiction of women in video games as "femnazis" and "cultural marxists", and recommends Milo Yiannopoulos as a good account of the subject, can be discounted as a reliable source on anything other than the author's opinion. - Bilby (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The Spectator is a long- and well-established, and respected, magazine. If we're going to use as sources pieces that refer to gamers as bigots, we can use this, too. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It is an opinion piece, by someone with a highly biased opinion. It can potentially be used as such, but not as anything more. - Bilby (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Gamasutra blog

Someone posted this to my talk page. I don't know if it's worth including. Thoughts? Willhesucceed (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community. The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.

So, no. Tarc (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Role of misogyny and antifeminism : Forbes/Kain

I see Kain's article is summarised as so under the subsection:

According to Erik Kain, writing at Forbes.com, the #GamerGate movement is driven by an anti-feminist backlash against the increasing diversity of voices involved in cultural criticism of video games. He explains, "What it boils down to is many people feeling upset that the video game space has been so heavily politicized with a left-leaning, feminist-driven slant."

However, Kain concludes in his article:

GamerGate [...] isn’t about feminists or misogynists. It isn’t about any of these things, and it’s about all of them all at once.

In the end, it’s about gamers upset with the status quo and demanding something better. It’s about a group of consumers and enthusiasts not simply feeling that their identity is threatened, but believing that they’re being poorly represented by an industry and press that grow more and more cliquish and remote every year. And it’s about the ad hoc, messy series of uncoordinated events that got us here.

? Willhesucceed (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources practicing a bit of revisionist history in the face of the many sources that highlight the misogyny and harassment of the affair do not matter. You've been trying to ram this narrative into the article for weeks now, and it just ain't gonna happen. Tarc (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

What does any of what you wrote have to do with the above? Kain's piece would appear to maybe be mischaracterised in the Wikipedia article. I'm bringing it up so we can discuss it. Willhesucceed (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"GamerGate [...] isn’t about feminists or misogynists" is simply untrue. Tarc (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, somebody else discuss this with me, because Tarc's off in his own world. Is the summary that's attributed to Kain accurate or should it be reworded/clarified somehow, or removed entirely, or what? Willhesucceed (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

As Tarc has pointed out, several weeks of "discussion" with you have shown that your only interest is to misrepresent gamergate as not primarily about sexism and harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Kain also said that GamerGate isn't about conspiracies or ethics, didn't he? He very clearly stated that he believes that Gamergate is driven by anti-feminism. His closing comments don't disagree with that assessment: he states that gamergaters feel their 'identity is being threatened' and that they are not well represented by the industry. Given that he's already made the argument that GamerGate is a backlash against progressive voices in the gaming industry, I think the summary is perfectly apt. And re: your comments about what 'world' Tarc is in, you really should stop attempting to discredit people who disagree with you like this: focus on the discussion, not the participants, please. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"I think the summary is perfectly apt." Then that's that. Thanks, Tara.

P.S. I posed this question as a result of a query on my Talk page. Thanks for the good faith, folks. Willhesucceed (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I am previously uninvolved in gaming matters and I think Willhesucceed does have some legitimate concerns which I think Tarc and TheRedPenofDoom could have better addressed instead of focusing on whatever narrative Willhesucceed could be trying to ram into the article. Reading Kain's article conclusion, Kain does say that GamerGate isn't about (conspiracies, scandal and corruption, feminists or misogynists) but rather it’s about all of them all at once. My interpretation is that Kain wishes to convey that it's not just about one of these issues, but a combination. Does the current quote used reflect this combination or just anti-feminism? I believe that the most important point in Kain's conclusion is actually [gamers] believing that they’re being poorly represented by an industry and press that grow more and more cliquish and remote every year. This should be reflected somehow too. TaraInDC would you be willing to comment again? starship.paint ~ regal 05:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Escapist developer series

The Escapist is posting over the next week or so a series of interviews with developers. I'll update this list as more are published:

• Female game developers on Gamergate

Willhesucceed (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason you need to keep maing new threads on each bunk source that you find that will assist your case into changing the topic of this article to not include the issues of sexism and misogyny?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You didn't even read the article, did you? It bolsters the case for sexism and misogyny. Again, thanks for the good faith, folks. Willhesucceed (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sommers reaction articles

Someone keeps reverting my removal of the reaction articles. I wish they would engage with me and explain their reasoning. I've explained mine; reposted from the Archive 5:

I read through the articles again. I really don't see justification for including the Polygon one. Sommers is talking about the criticism leveled at gamers, but [the article] uses Anita's videos about games to criticise Sommers. Moving it to Tropes vs Women or Anita's own page would be better. [...] Kotaku has the better article. I'll see what there is to include from it. [...]

The more I reread that section, the more apparent it becomes that the response articles aren't appropriate to this topic. The only actual criticism in the Kotaku article, which I've included, still focuses on the content of the games, not on gamers. I'd really rather remove it entirely.

It's turned into an edit war. Whoever it is, please explain your reasoning for referencing response articles to Sommers' video. Willhesucceed (talk) 05:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)