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

Straw poll - update lead

Should the lead paragraph be updated to read:

• The Gamergate controversy concerns misogyny and harassment in video game culture. In August 2014, media began covering actions on the internet which appeared under the umbrella term gamergate (sometimes GamerGate or the hashtag #gamergate) wherein a mostly anonymous or pseudonymous group of individuals without an identified leadership or organization made claims ostensibly about topics such as ethics in games journalism but which included a number of high profile incidents of harassment against women in the industry.

Since the previous offer of a new lead to address problems by focusing our article lead on what the sources actually cover, as most of the sections on this page wandered off into pointless discussion not about the article, a am going to offer it again. Please place your !vote and comment / sources about how / why it could more accurately represent the sources coverage of the subject.

!vote

• support it focuses the article on what has been covered - the controversy - and focuses on what the sources have found notable about the controversy - the harassment - while framing as the reliable sources have for months the "ostensible" claims that the gamergaters are theoretically about. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• strongest possible oppose as this is a full on violation of neutrality. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Which portions are NPOV? and please provide sources that support your claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• oppose Aside from the issue of having a partisan slant, the wording is loopy and poorly structured. Like always, the wording is poor to try to disguise a biased statement as though it were a neutral one. No points of view are attributed... it's the same biased, hacky thing you guys keep writing. What's different about it this time? YellowSandals (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• oppose Sorry I don't have time to explain now, it's similar to the above 2. Halfhat (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose but only because I prefer the version that came about prior to the full protection.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• oppose per yellow sandals Retartist (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose violates WP:NPOV by condemning pro-GG without hedging -> "ostensibly" starship.paint ~ regal 22:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

ahhh, the journalist ethic of "hedging". so it we added "There may be some truth to their harassment" it would pass your muster? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You can hedge it by quoting the opinions as being from the media. "Various media outlets view the GamerGate movement as putting up a false front" instead of "The GamerGate movement as putting up a false front". starship.paint ~ regal 05:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• oppose Not biased enough, should throw in there some mentions like "GamerGate is literally ISIS", like I've seen floating around Loganmac (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  Drop the snark.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Really? I thought not long ago we were out to prove that Gamergate supporters have embarrassing sexual fetishes. Are you sure we can't tie this issue to any terrorist groups? Maybe we can insinuate that they killed Mister Rogers. There's got to be somebody saying that. YellowSandals (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There were some accounts that looked like ISIS accounts (on twitter) that used both ISIS hashtags and the gamer-gate hashtag. Obviously not bots because only gamergate does bad things Retartist (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, isis spambots picked up #stopgamergate2014 by accident only source i found whoops Retartist (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose At Uncyclopedia, we have an oppose template. Anyways, blatant NPOV violation, does not acknowledge 3'd party trolling. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 23:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

"third party trolling" is fringe minimal part of the coverage. the "movement" started by hitching its wagons to trolling. has embraced anonymity to attempt to avoid culpability. but that can and is covered later in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose As mentioned by other users, This clearly violates WP:NPOV. I don't think I have to explain why. [[THEO!|User:Tjraptis20]] (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

actually, at least one person would need to. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as it serves to worsen the bias that already exists.Skyraider (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• oppose for reasons others have already stated more eloquent.Die-yng (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:NPOV. Obvious editorialising with the use of "ostensibly". Patriarch (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

have you read the sources? they near universally use "ostensibly" - it would be a gross NPOV violation to ignore the sources and NOT use "ostensible" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per above.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 05:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• support I think that this is factually accurate based on the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, and better than the current lead paragraph. I do think it could be a bit better, but WP:WIP.

I am concerned about the potential for votes like this to be skewed by meatpuppets... Really not sure why else so many people are saying this proposed lead is NPOV. --Sennsationalist (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that this version fails to clearly distinguish GamerGate itself (which isn't notable and has no unanimous focus) from the controversy it caused (which is notable and definitely a misogyny/diversity issue), thus implying that misogyny is factually GamerGate's entire raison d'être. (In fact, the phrasing of the bit about "claims" states this up-front as written.) This is not stated by any of the third-party sources used in the article (i.e. the ones not being targeted by GamerGate at the time of their writing); they merely say that that's the only significant thing to have come out of it. I say we just patch up the existing opening to fix the issue of original concern (distinguishing the movement from the controversy), if that hasn't been done already. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 06:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Chess dislikes this. Oppose as violation of WP:NPOV, and also due to the revised lede presenting subjective opinion as fact. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 01:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I oppose. I don't know if I'm posting correctly here but this is very biased: "made claims ostensibly about topics such as ethics in games journalism but which included a number of high profile incidents of harassment against women in the industry." The word "ostensibly" implies that ethics was some sort of cover. Also the word "but" reinforces it and makes it sound like that is the real reason. There was harassment from both sides to people of both sexes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punstress (talk • contribs) 02:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Punstress: You have read the sources havent you? where they almost exclusively state "ostensibly about"? And would there be a reason why we should not be following our policies which state that we follow the sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Randyest (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

the inevitable rambling discussion

Try to write a neutral lead and follow Wiki policy. That means don't write in the voice of one side of controversy. YellowSandals (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This "one side" is the only one adequately represented in reliable sources so per WP:V and WP:UNDUE your concerns are moot.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

My point is not moot. You still aren't supposed to write in the voice of a side in the controversy. We've been over this. YellowSandals (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It's the only voice out there that meets WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP when the other side's voice impinges on accusing someone of sleeping with five men.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You aren't supposed to write with Gamergate's voice either. YellowSandals (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Then we write with the voice of the media that says it's not inherently about ethics in journalism.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You write in Wikipedia's voice, you donk. YellowSandals (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

And Wikipedia's voice represents what the majority of reliable sources has to say about it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't know anything about morals. It's an encyclopedia. It just regurgitates facts and tells people who said what things. It is not a guide to figure out who life's bad guys are. Wikipedia's voice is passive, impartial, and encyclopedic. YellowSandals (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the usual argument that "misogyny and harassment" is implying a morality isn't it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It is me. The same argument we keep having. That morals are subjective. Harassment happened. Immoral intent? Eh. I have no idea. I'm not the type of person who would personally threaten someone over the internet and I don't know why or what anyone was trying to accomplish. YellowSandals (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The same argument would be just as valid in arguing to make the article on Hitler say "Hitler was evil."Think about why that would be wrong, then apply that to this. Halfhat (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Would you guys stop going "HITLER'S TREATED BETTER THAN GAMERGATE IS" for once?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you actually address my point? Halfhat (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

We keep saying it because one of history's greatest villains gets more respect than Gamergate does on this website. It would be comical if people weren't actively trying to destroy each other over this controversy right now. Like, if this were a Star Wars Vs Star Trek debate, this article would be hilarious. YellowSandals (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has the liberty of 70 years of historians talking about Adolf Hitler to present information as it is in that article. GamerGate is still happening.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Well we've had seventy years of people saying Hitler is one of history's greatest villains. YellowSandals (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

But why would you want to compare yourself with Hitler in the first place? Why constantly bring up this comparison?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not Gamergate. But no matter how evil something gets in anyone's eyes, if we can write a neutral article about Hitler without directly calling him evil, in theory we should be able to write a neutral article about anything! YellowSandals (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This is why it is even more important to write in a neutral voice to avoid recentism. As suggested at the arbcom case, we should be sticking to facts and not trying to judge which side is right even if the press has come to their own conclusion. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, poorer quality of information does not mean we can assume the press's opinion is correct, that argument makes zero sense. Halfhat (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Multiple press agencies possess this same "opinion" which in any other context constitutes an accepted idea or fact. Any form of denying this commonality is tantamount to conspiracy theory.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No, because they have no way of knowing it other than based off their personal opinions and assumptions, they can't conform this stuff so it's opinion. Wikipedia shouldn't share their spidey senses. Halfhat (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

"If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it./it becomes the truth" -Vladimir Lenin Retartist (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You cannot keep denying that the statements from news media from the New York Times to the BBC to CNN to The Washington Post are personal opinions and assumptions, nor keep quoting people who are so far right to make your points. If multiple news agencies see misogyny and sexism and harassment and say that the ethics in journalism claims are only a front then that is how Wikipedia will present this information. You cannot keep mitigating the statements from extremely reputable and reliable sources as opinions and assumptions just because GamerGate says its against corruption in (video game) journalism so that makes all media automatically against them and unusable.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand what a fact is and what an opinion is. FACT: People have been harassed. Opinion: It was misogynistic in intent/(it was done by GG/it was done by trolls/it was a false flag (These are assumptions)). Fact: Little has been achieved. Opinion: this is because of the cable/gamergaters only want to harass woman because they are evil man-babies. Fact: Hitler was anti-semitic and allowed/ordered jews to die. Opinion: Hitler was pure evil. Learn the difference between facts and opinions Retartist (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. This is the crux here. That "misogyny" or "misogynistic" is an opinion. But seriously, why do you guys keep going to that Hitler comparison?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The point is that we do not write WP articles prejudging a person/group that is otherwise universally considered "bad" or "evil" (a purely subjective quality) in a degrading manner but instead give that group appropriate coverage with regards to the sources (separating out any opinion towards that until later), and when it comes to actually explaining when it comes to what the opinion is, it is clearly not made in WP's voice. --MASEM (t) 04:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

"Misogyny" is not an opinion here though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. There is a pattern of harassment that easily looks like misogyny, and so the press (and myself, and very much yourself and a few others) can all say that the attacks appear to be a misogynistic because of their focus on woman. But until the people that actually did it are identified, and their personalities determines and all sorts of other studies to make a firm assessment if they did what they did in a misogynistic manner, it remains a significant opinion, not fact, that the attacks were misgoynistic. Consider the Ecole Polytech shooting, where the appearance of the attack was misogynistic: here is what the featured article intro says "Since the attack, Canadians have debated various interpretations of the events, their significance, and Lépine's motives. Many feminist groups and public officials have characterized the massacre as an anti-feminist attack that is representative of wider societal violence against women.... Other interpretations emphasize Lépine's abuse as a child or suggest that the massacre was simply the isolated act of a madman, unrelated to larger social issues....Still other commentators have blamed violence in the media[9] and increasing poverty, isolation, and alienation in society,[10] particularly in immigrant communities." That was in '89, and the cause remains an opinion. We are only 2-3 months out, and there is no way that it can be determined as a fact that the people are doing this for misogynistic manners - even if Occum's Razor says we should assume that. --MASEM (t) 04:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. It is not an opinion. Multiple news sources possess this same "opinion" of how GamerGate has done nothing but focus its attention on a bunch of women so that makes it misogynistic acts. You are making an impossible restriction here because it is highly unlikely that anyone is going to be discovered as the perpetrators. Misogyny is not an opinion and all you've done here is shown your new true colors.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, one of the prominent harassers was some Brazillian journo or something. Some pro-gg people tracked them down. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 04:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It is opinion. It might be repeated in 99% of the press, but that doesn't make it fact (See: "Global warming doesn't exist" ala 2000). This doesn't discount that their opinions are the predominate aspect of this debate so will get significant attention, but they remain, as about 90% of all the content of the RS, opinions. There are actually very few facts of note here: we know there was harassment and threats against at least 3 woman + others; we know those doing it used the #GG banner, and .. that's pretty much it. Everything else is the court of public opinion. --MASEM (t) 04:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If the RS rules were relaxed, then articles (regardless of source, so long as they themselves have good sourcing/evidence), then this article could become much more neutral. That's just my opinion. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 04:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

And if raindrops were donuts we would be a lot fatter than we are. But they are not and we are not going to drop RS just so we can cover gamergaters in a manner that they would prefer. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The identity of Sarkeesian's attacker has never been corroborated by reliable sources. There is a vast difference between climate change deniers and GamerGate denial. And Wikipedia's rules should not be made lax in any regard just so a positive spin can be made on the GamerGate movement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Masem, There is an objective difference between an opinion source and a news source which some editors feel contains opinions. The term 'opinion source' a specific meaning and it tends to be over-applied here. So long as what we are actually saying in this article matches what our reliable, non-opinion sources say, we're fine, and informing us over and over that what our mainstream sources are saying about gamergate is 'just their opinion' is not going to change Wikipedia policy. We should not be reporting opinion from an editorial as fact, but we absolutely can treat what the vast majority of our news sources are reporting as fact. Can you point to specific places where you believe we are using editorial sources to cite information that is presented as fact? -- TaraInDC (talk) 05:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong: the hitler comparison is used because he is a figure that 99.9% of people agree he was evil to some degree, and most historical sources agree that he was to some degree evil. But His wikipedia article doesn't say that he was absolutely evil at all in the lede, it doesn't even say he was evil, it says naism had been described as evil ONCE in the whole page. Retartist (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There has been no evidence presented beyond the pattern of attacks that the harassment is specifically driven by misogyny, particularly no apparent attempt to survey and understand the population of GG to see if it a potential issue with these people. (To contrast, the Newsweek/Brandwatch does explain it's methods as to make it clear that they can say X got more tweets than Y to be able to state that as facts, and then separate out their opinion - we would expect that for proper journalism here) However, it is very obvious when you step back and consider the quality of the sources, and who is saying what, that the use of this claim only occurs in the weaker RS and those closer to the event, making it a clear bias issue that we have to be aware exists and be careful in handling the sources. (The stronger reliable sources like NYTimes that are clearly not op-ed pieces stay very neutral though point out the criticism of the situation, when they do, making it clear it is an opinion or observation without 100% affirmation that it is a fact) Add that because we don't take sides, and the GG have denied saying it is about misogyny (which can be sourced), and that's even more reason that we cannot state the claims that might be popular in the press as fact. As to where we have a fact-presentation problem: the first sentence in the lede. The controversy is not about misogyny - that is an effect of the initial problems. As has been pointed out by others, the proper way to frame this is to state that while supports say it is about ethics, the persistent harassment attributed to GG has a pattern of sexism and misogyny, which has tainted any attempt to discuss any possible ethics issues. That is a very neutral statement true to both sides, but reflects the predominate opinion of the press here. (Really, think about it: everyone's pointed out there's misogyny involved, but it's a symptom not a cause that anyone is trying to figure out how to deal with to defuse GG - that's why the controversy can't be about that). Much of this is the right wording choices in the existing narrative simply to make statements that are too concrete as fact in WP's voice to be attributed to the press or specific source, simply so that we are clearly avoiding taking sides. --MASEM (t) 07:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

So we're allowed to say it's an attack on women and women's voices in gaming but we cannot continue referring to it as misogyny because GamerGaters say their movement isn't inherently misogynistic?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much yes, that's what "not taking sides" means, and it's the essence of our NPOV core content policy. Though you can say that the press has called it misogynistic in as many ways and shapes as you like, per WP:WEIGHT. Diego (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

And even that is questionable as "on women" seem to suggest that ONLY women are being attacked.--Thronedrei (talk) 09:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

At the absolute best there are two camps of gamergaters: the 'but ethics!' crowd (who by most accounts spend a lot of time talking about how they're about ethics and not much actually talking about it) and the ones doing the harassing. (And you can spare me the 'they don't represent gamergate' because we all know what the sources say.) We can't give 'but ethics' pride of place when they're the minority perspective. They're getting the extreme minority of mainstream press coverage, and that's because their actions are less interesting, less notable and less significant - because their ethics campaign, again, appears to be largely limited to saying 'gamergate is about ethics.' We can not claim that there is one coherent position that is the gamergate position. We have people saying gamergate is against harassment, and then we have gamergate's extremely well-documented harassment. So at the worst, this article is 'biased' against one faction of gamergate by not presenting it as the majority view at the expense of the much larger, more active and better referenced 'side' that's vocally attacking too-vocal women, "SJWs" and other undesirables in the gaming community. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that WEIGHT/UNDUE applies to the entire article, not a single area. The lede is supposed to concisely present the broad overview of the situation. When one is talking anything about a controversy or the like, the common form used in nearly every reputable source (and on WP pages) is to start with those seeking change to address their points, and then to address the opposition and their points, so that there's the counterlogic argument that follows. This might, in the microcasm of the lede, seem to violation WEIGHT/UNDUE for GG, but again, those apply to the article at large - the intense dislike the press has for GG is not going to go under (and in fact with the rest of the lede, it should be plainly obvious that this is the case). But to be neutral and concise, and to avoid presenting opinion as fact, calling the GG controversy as one about misogyny and harassment in the very first sentence is wrong; the controversy was over ethics (by the initiating side, regardless of how flimsy that reasoning is considered by the press), but the resulting harassment has led the press to broadly condemn the movement as misogynistic. This is why it is best to remove any attempt to qualify what the controversy is about in the first sentence, letting the 2nd and 3rd (about pro and antiGG respective) speak for themselves; this is more true to the sources as well that cannot determine what GG is really about. Putting the proGG side in sentence order over the antiGG side is not pushing their side as the majority view particularly when we follow up on the antiGG side as the broad condemnation of the movement, which makes it clear that's the majority view. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The question of what gamergate is about is split, even within the movement - there is 'but ethics!' and then there is lots of vicious harassment. This is not 'the movement says X and other people say Y.' It's 'the movement says X and does Y.' We're not going to treat those as two equal sides, 'pro-' and 'anti-' because that's not reality. There's no coherent pro-GG side, and no 'anti-GG' counter movement, and what the movement does can speak for it just as much as the 'but ethics!' protests do. So the question of what the controversy is about is very clear. There is no 'controversy' over whether or not gamergate is really about ethics. If it were, the sources would be more split. There would be sources for the 'but ethics' side other than trivial mentions in articles on harassment that mention that some people claim gamergate is about ethics. There would be an actual discussion. There isn't. Our sources either acknowledge the 'but ethics' claims or actively discredit them. That's not a controversy. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The quote in question

'Quinn told The New Yorker that she feels sympathy for her attackers; "People don't viciously attack anyone without having some deep-seeded loathing in themselves," she said.'

I don't see the purpose of this quote in relation to the article, it provides little relevant information to someone wanting to know about Gamergate, and it comes across as a deliberate attack on Gamergate supporters. Skeletos (talk) 04:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Quinn is not attacking GamerGate as a whole — she specifically directed that comment at the unidentified people who attacked and threatened her. Are you saying that the unidentified people who viciously harassed and threatened her are GamerGate supporters, and that those people should be taken as generally representative of all GamerGate supporters? I thought GamerGate condemned harassment.

Given that we extensively discuss the false allegations against her, I'm not sure why we should refrain from publishing the rebuttal and response of a person who made international headlines for being victimized by Internet harassment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Dude, the allegations against her account for 10% of the article, and the harassment is about 50%, I'd hardly call that an "extensive" discussion. It's not even a rebuttal, it's just another link in the "You're stupid! No, you are!" chain and doesn't help inform the reader about her harassment. It's not explicitly stated, but it is REALLY heavily implied that she's talking about Gamergate, the article the quote is from mentions it and it's used in an article ABOUT Gamergate. It's the conclusion that the reader is led to. If there were similarly snide comments about her, there would be a precedent for keeping this, but there isn't (And there shouldn't be). If it's about "unidentified people", then make that clear. Skeletos (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be kept. However, there should also be rebuttal quotes, to balance things out. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 06:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The rebuttal would be something like "Actually, we don't need self loathing to attack you"? Not quite sure what you mean by rebuttal. Koncorde (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It's literally explicitly stated that her comments refer to the people who attacked her. I'm not sure how it can be any more clear. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I know that, its being implied that the people who attacked her are either part of or are affiliated with Gamergate. Skeletos (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources have linked that harassment with GamerGate, so yes, that inference may be present. It's well-supported. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Causation does not equal correlation. That aside, I get the point of having the quote now, but could it be moved somewhere else where it won't come across as a straight up insult? Or rephrase it, I guess. Skeletos (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry this is bugging me, it's "correlation does not imply causation". HalfHat 09:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I feel somewhat silly now. Skeletos (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It adds nothing of value to the article. It should be removed. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If the article pointed out that this was a textbook example of how Quinn belittle people in GG, then I could see a point it keeping it in the article. However as it stands right now, it just allows Quinn's insult to insult people reading the article. It also might make some people believe that it is factual, and not just Quinn being her usual charming self.--Thronedrei (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of removing it. Quotes like this is why this article is so absurdly large. HalfHat 10:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Remove the quote - At one point, the New Yorker coverage was the only piece that talked to Quinn. But she's now appeared on MSNBC and the BBC. The quote regarding Gamergaters as "increasingly irrelevant" is a lot more on point than the sympathy quote. I don't think the current BBC quote is the strongest to use in the article, compared to, "Gamergate will always be glorified revenge porn by my angry ex.", or "I love games more than they hate me". If we're to continue using the current BBC quote, I would tie it in more directly to the New Yorker threat that it directly addresses. - hahnchen 17:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it's 5 for removal (including me), and 1 against. I'm gonna get rid of it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeletos (talk • contribs) 22:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we're going to give it more than 36 hours for discussion. And there's actually three people in favor of keeping it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for coming back here. On review, I forgot to count you (of all people), but don't see number 3. I am also perfectly willing to let this sit for a few more days, as long as there is still discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeletos (talk • contribs) 23:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

So as to prevent further battles of reverting, what would a reasonable timeframe be for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeletos (talk • contribs) 05:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Remove it - seems like an insult, doesn't seem very relevant or helpful either. Hahnchen brought up "Gamergate will always be glorified revenge porn by my angry ex", that might be more relevant. starship.paint ~ regal 07:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to get rid of the quote AGAIN when this discussion gets archived, if there isn't any objections voiced by that time. Might be a little after it gets archived, because I can't sit on this all day. PLEASE don't continue to edit war NorthbySouth, I know you can do more constructive edits, I've seen them.

Third paragraph of "Gawker Media and OP Baby Seal"

Even if it didn't comply with Fair Use or whatever, there is no way to stop people from archiving webpages. Be it a service like archive.today, or Konqueror's builtin archiver, there is absolutely no way to stop people from archiving, short of banning IPs from using services. And, if the RS is so right that GG will fail and burn, why would it matter? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 19:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You are right. why would violation of copyright matter? I mean, its not as if the people are claiming ethical highground. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Its not like fair use is actually being violated, under the "criticism" clause. Also, its not like anything of worth will be lost if the sites run out of money. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 00:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

under the "criticism" clause, there would, you know, have to be some "criticism" going on and not merely merely highjacking content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not a violation of WP:FRINGE.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

As no one else has really picked up on this issue, it clearly is a FRINGE aspect and should be removed. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Two sources, one a weak RS, and no further coverage, nor any implication of what this means to the larger picture, pretty much undue weight to even cover it given the more important issues going on. --MASEM (t) 23:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No. WP:FRINGE does not at all cover this because that is about fringe theories like creationism or anti-vaccination. It is not about a writer at Vox raising the complaint that websites are being copied wholesale.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be spidering. Only relevant articles are being copied, as to avoid giving the sites pageviews. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 00:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you even read the piece? They pointed out that much more than the "relevant" articles are being copied.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That explicitly said "not all by Gamergate", so it's a red herring. They're using a service that other people use to copy articles inappropriately. It's not a tactic limited to GG. --MASEM (t) 01:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not the operative word here. Just because they point out that the archive websites happen to be used by other people does not mean that they cannot point out that thousands of pages on their websites have been copied because of Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Your point being...? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 19:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I made my fucking point. The writer at Vox is noting that thousands of articles from Gawker, Vox, etc. are being archived by peole on KotakuInAction for the sole purpose of reading their website in whole and not because they want to criticize a handful of articles that were critical of GamerGate. They noted articles completely unrelated to Gamergate or gaming or electronics being archived. Just because the writer also notes that archive.today is used by climate change deniers to do the same thing to a climate change website does not completely negate the fact that people at KIA are using it for just reading shit on Gawker and Vox.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Well then that's the same thing as people using google translate as a proxy. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 20:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Who exactly is talking about using google translate as a proxy? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Gawker's Massive COI in This

Since one of the goals of the revolt is to wipe Gawker off of the face of the earth, unless of course they actually deliver on their ethics promises, it would make sense that Gawker try to smear the GamerGate revolt. Since I know how much Wikipedia hates COI, per WP:COI, I do not think Gawker is a fair source for anything on this matter. Also seeing how Vox Media and possibly Ars Technica are on the hitlist, they would also benefit from smearing GamerGate. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 19:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that anyone who covers GG "gets targeted", such a proposal would kind of leave us with clickhole. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference, though: Gawker was targeted before it commented on GG (likely because of the issues with Grayson et al, combined with its pre-existing mutual hostility with Reddit); it's central to the controversy. More mainstream (and reliable) sites weren't targeted until after they commented, so they're fair game. (I don't know about Vox or Ars Technica, though.) Random the Scrambled ^(?) 23:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

As with all sources, the question is more to do with how they are used - I'm not inclined to remove Gawker from the equation completely. What uses of Gawker in the current article do you feel are a problem? If we look at the individual uses we should be able to get an idea of their reliablity. - Bilby (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

If anything, Gawker sites that are clear opinion pieces after they were knowingly targeted by GG should be avoided due to the clear bias, unless they are specifically commenting on the actions of GG against them. Like, a general opinionated update by Kotaku about GG overall should be avoided, while if they are factually covering a new bit of news in the issue, then that's likely okay (but we should seek more reliable sources not as involved if possible). --MASEM (t) 07:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Masem. Bilby: references 11(a) and 103(a) are good examples of what I'm worried about. (The latter may be salvageable, but it's worked in poorly at the moment.) Random the Scrambled ^(?) 07:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

How about somebody make a list of every reference in the article at present which cites Gawker followed by the linked statements?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I gave it a shot here. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 04:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope. The citations you've collected are all perfectly fine. We are not going to remove the well-sourced and indisputable discussion of the fact that the claims about Zoe Quinn are false merely because GamerGate disagrees with Kotaku. If you want us to rack up half a dozen more citations on that, we can. But we're not going to remove the Kotaku post refuting the charges, and it's not an opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to. Other sources already cover that. But to quote Gawker sources extensively for claims about themselves and state it as fact in Wikipedia voice is not acceptable. They are WP:PRIMARY sources in this. Tutelary (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

No, they aren't. As has been repeated here 18 million times, you don't get to convert well-established reliable sources into non-reliable sources just because your movement opposes them. There's been no demonstrated reason why these sources would magically become unreliable except WP:IDONTLIKEIT writ large. We get that GamerGate hates Gawker. Guess what? That has precisely nothing to do with how Wikipedia judges reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

North, you really trying to say that because I don't believe Gawker commenting on themselves should be in the article I am in this 'movement'. Next you'll say that if I edit the Republican page to remove some blog sourced trivia criticizing them I'm a 'Hardcore Conservative'. Stop with labels. Anywho, I'm not in my right mind but in any case, I don't see much problem as long as they're not commenting on themselves--Mainly on the Zoe Quinn stuff which is in their ballpark and if came to, would probably be substantiated by other sources in any case. That's what they're seeming to do according to Mr. Random's particular source collection and take on it. Tutelary (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a strawman, North - please stop using it. The issue is not that GamerGate opposes them. The issue is that GamerGate opposed them specifically (accusing them of rampant "agenda-pushing" and failure to address or identify conflicts of interest in their writing), before Gawker ever acknowledged them, let alone published these articles. Thus, at the time of writing those articles, it was in Gawker's best interest to denounce GamerGate. This is not the case for the more mainstream sources - no, not even the ones that GamerGate opposes now, because the sources denounced them - so they're fine. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 05:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you understand, Mr. Random. Reliable sources don't become unreliable merely because someone or some group makes wholly-unfounded accusations against them. Yes, that's what they are — unfounded, nonsensical conspiracy-theory accusations. Not a single reliable source gives a shred of credence to any allegation against Quinn and Grayson.

I'm sure lots of 9/11 truthers believe the mainstream media is attempting to silence their viewpoint and cover up George W. Bush's conspiracy with Bill Clinton and the Saudi Royal Family to false-flag a terrorist attack, and I'm sure they have accused lots of media sources of being corporate shills for this conspiracy. That doesn't make any of the mainstream reliable sources refuting their claims unreliable for Wikipedia purposes. And if you don't like my comparison here, that's just too bad — GamerGate is built around a similarly-fringe set of conspiracy theories with a similar amount of credence in mainstream reliable sources, which is to say virtually none. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The accusations do make it a primary source. Refer to Tutelary's comment above. Also, the mainstream media in that case had nowhere near the incentive to refute the claims as Gawker does here - the article itself mentions that Gawker Media could be financially harmed by all this, whereas mainstream media can take a little flak from run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorists. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 05:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate has attempted to financially harm several different media sites, including Gamasutra, Polygon and Rock Paper Shotgun. That does not make any of those sources unreliable or unusable. Unilateral accusations and attacks do not constitute evidence, much less proof, that a source is unreliable. As is trivial to source, the charges laid by some GamerGate supporters against Kotaku have been examined, discredited and rejected by other mainstream reliable sources. That GamerGate continues to cling to these claims like a life ring in a hurricane long after everyone else has moved on does not permit its supporters to make hay with them on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop using strawmen. The disproving of GamerGate's claims has nothing to do with this, nor does Gawker's general reliability. And if those other media sites were attacked before commenting on GamerGate, and if it posed a real risk to them in any way, then they must be used with similar caution. GamerGate's claims and actions do not capture the problem - the problem is that they were taken seriously by enough people for long enough to give Gawker reason for concern for its reputation and/or profits, especially when Intel, Adobe, etc. got involved. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 06:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

as the backdoor game to get the article to not state that the allegations against Quinn are false because Gawker is "not reliable" is not gonna work. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

its no "strawman" - When the issue is claims of "conflict of interest" and the claims of conflicts of interest have been shown false, then the "conflict of interest" claim is meaningless. "AXIOM: We cannot use Blue sources. GG: Suzie is Blue so we cannot use her. EVERYONE ELSE: Suzie is not blue. GG: You still cannot use Suzie because we claim she is blue." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The conflict of interest GG claims exists is not the issue. The issue is that the claim was made in the first place, and Gawker was threatened by it, regardless of whether GG was right or wrong. It's more like this: "AXIOM: We cannot use Blue sources. GG: Suzie is Blue, and we're going to tell everyone so people stop taking her seriously. SUZIE: I am not Blue. OTHER SOURCE: These accusations that Suzie is Blue could pose a real financial risk to her. ME: Then we cannot use Suzie's claims about them as factual sources, whether she's actually Blue or not." Random the Scrambled ^(?) 20:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

No other sources treat GG's allegations about Gawker as meaningful or well-founded. In fact, they widely treat the allegations as total nonsense. This means that GG's allegations are fringe theories which we give no credence whatsoever. GG's complaints are on the same level as 9/11 conspiracy theorists' claims that media were bought and paid for by George W. Bush and the Bilderbergs to cover up a false flag attack. We do not omit media sources from 9/11 Truth movement that truthers believe are "biased" against them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That is not the point. GG could be claiming that Gawker's writers eat babies, or that one of their writers stole candy from one. The material of the claim has nothing to do with it. What matters is that GG said something negative about Gawker and started rallying people and corporations (e.g. Intel, Adobe) behind them, to the point where Gawker had a financial interest in portraying them as raging misogynists (and even said up-front that this interest exists, as stated in this article). This is not the case for 9/11 truthers because they never did anything that could make even a small dent in the profits of the media that dismiss them as conspiracy theorists. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 21:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

So should we infer that anything published by Gawker prior to them having an alleged financial interest would be fine? CIreland (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Assuming Gawker is a reliable source (WP lists them as one), yes. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 03:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Going back to the page, it seems I didn't explain adequately - if I properly recall, other sources disproving the allegations are already present in the article, and should be used instead of the ones that are there now. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 06:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, we can add more. We're not removing the original Kotaku source, though. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there's so much opposition to what Mr Random is doing. Most of the stuff he asks to be removed already has other references anyway. All we are doing is preventing potential COI. starship.paint ~ regal 07:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the allegation that they slept together now established as true? Why do we say they are false? There are false allegations but there are true ones as well. As I recall that was not magically revealed but came out as an announcement after blog/manisfesto on Quinn. That allegation being true changed the ethics requirements of disclosure I believe. If this had been a financial reporter that was found to own stocks in companies they didn't cover (or bought stocks after they covered them), it's generally a firing offense. --DHeyward (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The allegation is that their relationship led to the coverage, which is false because the relationship started after the coverage. Prior to that, she was a source. Woodroar (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

And there wasn't even any meaningful coverage to begin with — the sum total of what Nathan Grayson wrote about Depression Quest on Kotaku were the words "Depression Quest." Three months earlier, at RPS, he wrote a whole phrase about it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly this essay seems to agree with OP, I'm not sure how widely accepted t's guidance is though. HalfHat 14:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Masem's large reorganization of the ethics section

I object to Masem's significant reorganization of the ethics section, which downplays the fact that GamerGate's ethics claims are widely dismissed and mocked by reliable mainstream sources. An attempt at compromise was reverted, so I have reverted to the prior version and request that you discuss your proposed changes and gain consensus. The opening of the "ethics claims" section must discuss the fact that the claims to be about "journalism ethics" are not taken seriously by mainstream reliable sources, are viewed as a post hoc smokescreen for harassment and that many of GamerGate's "ethics" claims ("objective reviews") are seen as having absolutely nothing to do with mainstream conceptions of journalism ethics. That phrase has a meaning and GamerGate doesn't get to make up new ones at its own convenience. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The current section, and your revision after it, throws out any attempt at neutrality (in terms of not having WP speak on either side of the debate). My version at least gave the sourced explaination from the GG side, followed by the numerous rebuttal points to show why these were unworkable. You also took out some new sources that were added that supported the antiGG side. We cannot claim that the GG ethics claims are invalid directly. per WP:IMPARTIAL. --MASEM (t) 07:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE, the claim that "objective reviews" have anything to do with "journalism ethics" is a fringe theory with no mainstream credibility. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. ... We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. It is trivial to demonstrate that effectively no one within the profession takes seriously the idea that you can make a review "objective" and that it departs wildly from mainstream, prevailing conceptions of journalism ethics. For example, you will not find a single written code of journalism ethics anywhere on the planet that says anything about requiring critical reviews to be "objective." Doesn't exist, period, end of sentence. It is not a concept that has any meaning or validity within the field. The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. We have lots of independent reliable sources, and all of them mock the idea of "objective reviews," considering them to have nothing to do with journalism ethics. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles.

So yes, we can mention that GG thinks "objective reviews" have something to do with journalism ethics. We are then required to immediately state that mainstream sources consider this to be complete and total nonsense. We are not stating that they are invalid, we are stating that mainstream sources universally consider them to be invalid. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

And that is exactly what my rewrite did. In the case of "objective reviews" (which by the way are a real thing, if you are talking applicences), I had taken language that said that that was one of their claims, and then had, I believe, 4 sentences that were basically opinions from the press that begged the question of how you can review a video game objectively. Point, counterpoint. And then after exhausting all the main ethics points brought up, I had one paragraph that noted the press's general dismissal of the ethics concerns as nonsense, and then second as using that as a front for harassment. Point-counterpoint. That's a neutral telling of the facts with the predominate weight of opinions from the press's side. --MASEM (t) 07:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about "point-counterpoint," because that's not how we should write the section. It's about expressly stating that "while GamerGate thinks objective reviews have something to do with journalism ethics, mainstream sources reject this contention and consider it to be nonsensical." That is not "biased," that is, in fact, a perfectly NPOV statement. "NPOV" doesn't mean we treat unequal claims equally, and GamerGate's claims here are profoundly unequal. Into your rewrite, I inserted the statements that However, these claims are widely derided and dismissed by mainstream sources, which note that many of the supporters' claims have nothing to do with actual journalism ethics and This stance has been widely mocked as having nothing to do with journalism ethics and fundamentally misunderstanding the point of critical review — which is, by definition, subjective and based on the opinion of the review writer. These are stating, in Wikipedia's voice, how the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources treat the fringe claim. I'm sorry if you don't like that fact, but it's a fact. "Objective reviews" of video games is literally nothing more than a punchline that demonstrates GamerGate's profound failure to understand what the words "journalism ethics" actually mean. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Except that you loaded this language before the "point" of the "point-counterpoint" approach, thus purposely poising any "point" that is to be made. This is the type of language and phrasing and source use that makes this article a flat out failure of IMPARTIAL. We're not going to ever have balanced coverage, but we certain can do everything in our power to be "fair", because that does not require us to follow the sources at all. We do not prejudge any group, nor implicate through our writing any group. --MASEM (t) 08:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

If the reliable mainstream sources implicate something, then yes, we do implicate that thing.

The second paragraph of creation science states: The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[4][5] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[6][7] According to a popular introductory philosophy of science text, "virtually all professional biologists regard creation science as a sham."

This is how we must describe GamerGate's claim that "objective reviews" are an issue of journalism ethics — as something that does not meet the mainstream criteria to even be considered an issue of journalism ethics.

Frankly, this is also how we must describe GamerGate's claim to be about journalism ethics at all, given the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources that present those "ostensible" or "purported" concerns as little more than a smokescreen for a campaign aimed at silencing women and shutting down legitimate discussion of social issues in video games.

An NPOV opening paragraph to your section in this vein would state Some GamerGate supporters state that their movement is about journalism ethics, stating that they are concerned about conflicts of interest between journalists and developers, and desire video game reviews to be "objective." The overwhelming consensus of mainstream sources is that GamerGate's claims to be about journalism ethics are a smokescreen for harassment of women and silencing discussion of social issues in video games. Beyond minor issues of disclosing Patreon donations, none of the movement's ostensible ethics concerns have been found to be meaningful and some have been described as "nonsensical." In particular, the demand for "objectivity" in inherently-subjective video game reviews has been roundly dismissed as having nothing to do with journalism ethics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph of creation science is a fair overview without prejudgement of the theory by those that support it, with the second paragraph countering that. That's point-counterpoint that we should be using. Mind you, that's also an unaccessed article, so that's not a good one to look at to evaluation for global status, but even there, that one is a lot more fair and absolutely does not take a critical voice and tone to include the criticism about the theory. We cannot take the press's side (which remains opinion, not fact) and claim that we are impartial. We have to write better than the bulk of the press sources have done here because we as a neutral encyclopedia, and not mindlessly parroting the press's opinion. Your "suggested" rewrite is far from neutral.--MASEM (t) 15:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Creation science is religious doctrine masquerading as a pseudoscience and our article as a whole reflects that. Just as the article on Gamergate accurately reflects the mainstream point of view that it is an anti-feminist and anti-diversity backlash masquerading as a consumer movement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course creation science is a normally considered bogus by the press. But notice the tone and approach of that article. It points this out but not to a fault. It is that type of neutrality in tone and approach we need. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Creation science also has a solid, but bullshit, organization behind it. Gamergate, again, does not.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, you added more excessive quotes in the second revision. The point about Citizen Kane (ignoring the fact it was from a VV blog, and not the VV paper proper) was effectively covered by the latter #readergate part that I had already included, and didn't need a super long quote. You've already got the GG side nailed in the coffin, you don't need to add more nails to it. --MASEM (t) 08:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:NEWSBLOG, blogs published under the auspices of mainstream publications are reliable sources "if the writers are professionals" — the writer of the piece is the film editor of The Village Voice, which undisputedly qualifies it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a minor point, and you missing the key one: this is more "death by a thousand cuts" by adding more damning quotes (lengthy ones at that) that repeat what has already been said, which while not against any immediate policy, clearly shows no attempt to be impartial per NPOV. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE when the thousand cuts are reflective of the reliable sources, the blood streaming from "but ethics" is the WP:IMPARTIAL result. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Masem's reorganization. The evidence of video game companies changing their policies (previously and currently) come in the sixth paragraph, when it is obviously an actual product of GamerGate. That should indeed come first. Instead, currently, we have various media sources piling on and poisoning the well, IMO, before the reader even realizes (if he gets to that point) that GamerGate has indeed produced some results. By all means, leave the media criticism of GamerGate later in the section, just make sure that they are explicitly attributed to the media instead of as a fact. starship.paint ~ regal 07:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That's because it's the only thing that happened. The media isn't poisoning the well. Gamergate did that all by themselves. There was no corruption in video games journalism or any violations of journalistic ethics. It was all invented gy Gamergate to be angry at Zoe Quinn some more. So when a bunch of video game news sites decide to just add "Patreon" clauses in their rules for their contributors does not mean anything in the long run when Gamergate has decided its new target is the fact that cultural criticism exists and video game reviews are no longer arbitrary scores like you would get on X Play.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong is correct. We present the views and analysis of the mainstream sources and the "but ethics" as the nonsensical smokescreen that the reliable sources have determined it to be. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying you should discount the analysis of mainstream media. You can include them. I'm talking about a re-organization of the section. starship.paint ~ regal 13:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

When the reorganization inappropriately privileges viewpoints that are not given credence by the mainstream sources, such "reorganization is inappropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. We are required to impartial, meaning we cannot take the press's side in it either even if the predominate opinion. We have to be fair (not balanced) to both sides, and write this as an encyclopedic article and not a thinly-veiled attack piece. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

uhhhh, no. the press is not on a "side" . we are required to follow the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Since part of GG's claims are about corruption in journalism, the press are not neutral in this debate; the bulk of the press (typically those outside of the top tier RS sources) have subjectively taken a side in response. And we can still follow the sources but wrap around the claims as to not make it like we have taken the same side. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:V / WP:RS / WP:UNDUE / WP:FRINGE no, gamergates facile allegations do not mean we change our policies and give whinging conspiracy theorist equal credence to the reliable sources, no matter how many times you attempt to make such ridiculous claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This article violations NPOV in its writing style and tone. The change I made removed no sources, and in fact added more antiGG sourcing to support the statements that the ethics concerns are unfounded. It simply rearranged things to present the issues in a very neutral manner. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:STRUCTURE is also an NPOV issue, and when "making more neutral" means "giving more validity to gg claims than are present in the majority of the reliable sources" it is not "fixing" NPOV issues, it is creating them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

There was no attempt to give the GG side any more weight, so that's a bullshit argument. It simply was to describe the debate in a neutral "point/counterpoint" format, with the counterpoint side being the clearly predominate view. --MASEM (t) 18:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

A mere rearrangement of material does not change the weight given to the GG side. Rather, it makes for more logical reading. In a debate, the counterarguments don't go first. If the anti-GG side is so convincing, any reader could be convinced when it rightly goes last. starship.paint ~ regal 06:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It certainly can change the weight, and that's why organizing it in such a way violates WP:STRUCTURE. Woodroar (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

So you are effectively saying that you want the article to be an anti-GG piece and not actually even be a remote attempt of actually reporting what is going on?--Thronedrei (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If you define giving due weight to the mainstream reliable sources discussing the issue as being "anti-GG," then yes, this piece will be "anti-GG." That is, it will present as predominant the point of view which is predominant in mainstream reliable sources. That you see that point of view as being "anti-GG" is neither here nor there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that media is part a major part of the controversy. According to Wikipedia it is against the rules for a person or group to edit an article about themselves. This article is mainly about Journalists and those that claim that Journalists are corrupt. If you are using journalists as a "reliable source" (see only source) and they provide no actual evidence that can back up their claims, then by using their pieces to write this article is the same as if the journalists themselves would have written it. This is why it is propaganda.--Thronedrei (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

No, this article is not "mainly about journalists." It's mainly about the harassment which three non-journalists have been subjected to by a band of Internet thugs bent on slut-shaming trollery, silencing dissenting voices and keeping their secret gamer boys club for boys only. That is the part of GamerGate which the whole world has focused on, which put Anita Sarkeesian on The Colbert Report and which got front-page space in The New York Fucking Times. I'm really sorry that your movement hasn't gone the way you hoped, but Wikipedia documents the world as reliable sources say it is, not as members of a disorganized mob/movement might hope it would be. Effectively the whole world has taken a look at what GamerGate says it is, what GamerGate actually does and what the real-world results of GamerGave have been. Their conclusions are self-evident, and effectively the only dissenters are Milo, a couple YouTube streamers and people who literally believe that men should have dominion over women.

A wide range of sources — including sources such as the Columbia Journalism Review and On the Media that are specifically noted for their prowess at reviewing and criticizing journalists — have reviewed those claims and found them to be either made up of whole cloth or utterly fallacious and having nothing to do with journalism ethics.

Repeating the words "journalism ethics" over and over and over again without actually making any testable claims and contentions about ethical issues in journalism is cargo cult science. What journalism ethics issues has the movement raised that have not been roundly dismissed as nonsense? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There actually is agreement by the VG journalism side that the GG ethical issue of conflicts of interest exist; they have made it clear that the press and the publishers are unfortunately getting too chummy-chummy as a possibly necessary evil for the journalism side to do what they think they need to do (provide good coverage of games before they are released). But to counter that, there are two things that they have said that GG is doing wrong. One, obviously, is that the continued harassment begs the "but ethics!" mantra, the signal lost in the noise, and why they have said that they would love to discuss how they can deal with the ethics after the people that do ditch the GG mentality and work under a different name or banner. Second, as we have already, the fact that the GG people are targeting the indie relationship with the journalists, while the journalists think that that's a misplaced target, as it should be on the AAA publishers that have created this atmosphere that require the press to work closely with publishers (eg metacritic scores, etc.) This further leads to the point that targetting only the indie devs, and those that work on arthouse-style games, seems to suggest that this is more attempt to silence political views from the indie side.

So that is one point that actually is not debunked, but that the actions/tactics of the GG belie if that is really an issue, in the press's eye.

Irregardless, even for cases where we are talking about a group with a widely taken but published fringe views, like 9/11 Truth movement or Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, WP writes about the topic neutrally, presenting what can be reliably sourced about the view's points (without attempting any editorializing) before going into criticism. Point-counterpoint. GG is made more difficult because the criticism by the press feed into the cycle of the story, and I agree that we have to present this story with an early focus on the harassment, since that has tainted any coverage of the viewpoint of GG, but we can still do analysis of their position in a neutral, point-counterpoint (as I had written) that gives the ideals of the non-harassment side of GG (the majority of them) fair neutral treatment (which was about two halves of two paragraphs in my rewrite) before expressing the predominately negative counterpoint from the press about them (3+ paragraphs on the ethics arguments alone). That's an impartial point-counterpoint coverage that we use throughout WP to stay neutral. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

What journalists have said is that hypothetically, GamerGate could have a point about advertising dollars having too much influence over coverage. However, because GamerGate has shown zero interest in criticizing AAA publishers, they point out that GamerGate refuses to actually address that issue and instead spends its time whining about "social justice warriors." In fact, as several have written, their attempts at advertiser boycotts are reinforcing the unethical behavior of advertisers in having influence over what gets published. It's the antithesis of journalism ethics.

Thus, yes, there is broad agreement that GamerGate is not making meaningful claims about journalism ethics. As many journalists have written, this suggests that the "journalism ethics" issue is really just a smokescreen to cover up misogyny and the desire to keep video games a sooper sekrut boys club. There is no "signal" to be "lost in the noise" because GamerGate doesn't actually care about journalism ethics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

This argument fails to separate "ideals" from "actions". The ideals of GG are established and sourced to be about ethics. The actions of course speak for themselves backed by numerous opinions from the press, but need to be treated separately from the ideals to maintain neutrality, otherwise, that is failure to be impartial. --MASEM (t) 21:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

No, no they aren't. The ideals are *claimed* to be about ethics, or *purportedly* about ethics or *ostensibly* about ethics, as numerous reliable sources have noted. Merely reciting "journalism ethics" as if it is a magic incantation which deflects all criticism does not mean that anyone in GamerGate is making substantive arguments related to those words. As the overwhelming weight of reliable sources have noted, nobody in GamerGate is making substantive arguments about journalism ethics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There are several sources that describe that some GGs are going for ethics, and then in a few sentences later, explain that their efforts are not well targetted, or overshadowed by the harrassment, or even possibly a front to continue harassment. Regardless of what the complaints are, it is still a fact that there are some in GG that say they are for ethics, and it is a failure of WP:IMPARTIAL (a portion of NPOV) to either twist this fact or bury it in favor of the criticism. WP has absolutely no business to twist the knife into the GG case any further than the press already does. We have to separate facts from opinions and present the facts impartially. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You're missing the point, Masem. In the same breath that they say "they are ostensibly/purportedly going for ethics," the sources note that GamerGate is not making any meaningful arguments about journalism ethics. "Journalism ethics" isn't an argument, it's a concept around which you might frame particular arguments. All of the reliable sources note that GamerGate's "journalism ethics" arguments have either been found to be totally false (Quinn/Grayson) or not to have anything to do with journalism ethics to begin with ("objective reviews"). This is what we mean by GamerGate engaging in cargo cult science. They are repeating the phrase "journalism ethics" endlessly, as if that alone has meaning. It does not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't even think this really needs a section, it's somewhat worked into the whole article.HalfHat 16:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I still think the section (in it's current state at the very least) should be destroyed. It's just a bunch of quotes. That section alone has about enough quotes for an entire article. HalfHat 16:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the harassment, the analysis that the "but ethics" is an empty claim is the most covered aspect of gamergate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the cherry flavored analysis does say that. However, if one were to do even 10 minutes of searching on bing or something, there would be proof of third party trolling. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 22:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have WP:RS reliable sources that support your claim or is that merely WP:OR? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That "searching on bing" does not equate to content that meets WP:RS. And why Bing? Is Google suddenly against Gamergate now?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I like the logo and the daily jpeg of Bing. Hell, I made bing the default on Google chrome. Also, its because I'm a Microsoft fan, to some extent. (I'm also a Google fan, and a KDE fan.) Problem? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 00:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop weaseling

By now the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources is that Gamergate's stated ethical concerns are misplaced and in some cases actually inimical to good ethics. But here we are with silly phrasing like the first paragraph of a section titled "Debate over legitimacy of ethics concerns" that reads:

Some Gamergate supporters contend that the movement is concerned with ethical issues in video games journalism. However, many of those outside the movement contend that its true motives are simply a culture war against diversifying social norms in video games — and women in particular. Evidence which is said to justify this belief is the movement's origination in false accusations and 4chan trolling involving a female indie developer's sex life, frequent harassment targeting female figures in the gaming industry rather than journalists, disinterest in engaging or criticizing major game publishers with a history of proven ethical violations and virulent opposition to social criticism and analysis of video games.

"Evidence which is said to justify this belief..." That's weaseling. A debate doesn't consist of a limited group of adherents saying one thing and everybody else who has examined the facts saying the opposite.

Write the facts according to reliable sources. Full stop. Don't pretend that a debate exists when it clearly does not. --TS 17:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a suggested re-wording? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Either remove the weasel words or remove the section implying a debate. Do report on the critique of the ethics fig leaf, but this may perhaps be better placed in other sections. --TS 18:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Boom, there it is. This is the fundamental problem with the article (aside from that fact that it is long and unreasonable, which is somewhat related) and I don't think it has been laid out this clearly or this forcefully before. We must follow the above advice. Protonk (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Right now I'm not sure 100% that after using this advice that we will have the right neutrality on the article, but cutting out the rhetoric that is used to continue to poke and prod at how "wrong" the proGG side by the press (such as the sentence the above that TS points out), and stick as close to the facts will make this at least in the right direction. (The length can met by realizing this is a WP:QUOTEFARM; we can keep all the sources, but paraphrase and/or cut out to key statements instead of including 3-4 sentences of every quote.) --MASEM (t) 20:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

No. The point being made is that the wording is giving too much credit to Gamergate rather than Gamergate being made to look wrong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I.E the point is that the article should be a disingenuous propaganda piece?--Thronedrei (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The issues with this article are much more complex. There's a general apathy towards discussing anything other than NPOV issues. A tenancy to add something from every source found, and opposition to any removal, and unrelated discussions being dragged into a NPOV dispute. Even ignoring these, it's not an easy issue to cover since it is quite polarizing so most of the editors here have strong views. HalfHat 20:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

(Hint: if you think the article will benefit from specific discussions other than "bias", then start specific discussions that are not "bias" related.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

A month or two ago when this article was first created somebody mentioned the stupidity of writing an article about something that was still taking place. I would say I concur with that person whomever that was. Media as I have pointed out are idiotic and bias, this in turn affects what people think. Wikipedia then preach this media opinion as if it was the truth which in turn means that people silly enough to use Wikipedia as an actual reliable source of information(lol) because they are to lazy to browse the net and do some research themselves... this in truth creates the news. I.E wikipedia is contributing to furthering a false narrative. I have pointed it out time and time again, Media's opinion about GG is slander, it is not hthe truth and even it if it were they have so far presented ZERO evidence that what they say is true. Every single contributor here are just using media articles as "source" since this is the only thing Wikipedia seem to allow -- and yet media itself present no proof of anything. I.E wikipedia is slandering people/groups. I know, wikipedia has safeguarded itself agianst stuff like this as it will make claims such as "we don't control our users" and "wikipedia is run by its contributors". It is the reason why wikipedia only allows "reliable sources" since if anyone would accuse wikipedia of slandering they would have two safeguards. One being "the users did it" and secondly "we only allow content verifiable from a reliable source, so go sue that source instead". However THIS is exactly why an article such as this one fails at what it is supposed to do. It doesn't say that media reports what it does, it is written in such a way to make it seem as if what media says is an actual encyclopedia entry.--Thronedrei (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

FactofTheDay I have, the only significant attention they received were arguments about NPOV. HalfHat 20:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I propose Some GamerGate supporters state that their movement is about journalism ethics, stating that they are concerned about conflicts of interest between journalists and developers, and desire video game reviews to be "objective." The overwhelming consensus of mainstream sources is that GamerGate's claims to be about journalism ethics are a smokescreen for harassment of women and silencing discussion of social issues in video games. Beyond minor issues of disclosing Patreon donations, none of the movement's ostensible ethics concerns have been found to be meaningful and some have been described as "nonsensical." In particular, the demand for "objectivity" in inherently-subjective video game reviews has been roundly dismissed as having nothing to do with journalism ethics. Sources are [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], etc. etc. etc. etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

We can really remove the "Some" that starts the sentence. The vast majority of Gamergate supporters who've been interviewed state it's about ethics. "Gamergate supporters state that ..." Willhesucceed (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to back that up? Random the Scrambled ^(?) 03:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) Nope. the only actions that brought reliable source coverage are the "some" gamergaters sending death and rape threats. we will not minimize their impact. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

What sources do you have that only 'some' GamerGaters support ethics in journalism? You made the edit itself. Red seems to be making the claim that 1 fact implies the other. This is textbook WP:NOR. Red, provide a source, as that's the only way to prove an edit is not original research. Anything short of that and I'll think you're trying to justify OR in the article. Tutelary (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

this is getting tendentious . there are plenty of sources that say gamergate is incoherent chaos that has no actual center or unified anything. do YOU have any source that says that all gamergate it about ethics? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Not my burden. The vitriolic attacks on my editing patterns are not appreciated in the least, Red and don't make for a good encyclopedia building. You seem to have the implication that because some of them did death threats that only some of them support ethics in journalism. That's WP:SYNTH, full stop. Provide a source that only -some- of them support ethics in journalism. Tutelary (talk) 04:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Two camps have emerged within the GamerGate movement. Those sending and coordinating threats targeting people within the industry, and those who decry such acts while claiming to fight for better ethics within games journalism. [13], for at least one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know cherries were in season. There are many factions in all sides. There is a group who solely go and mass report dox spammers and such, "GamerGate Harassment Patrol". But that doesn't fit the cherry scented narrative. Hmm, I'll look at that article and see what it sources itself. You shouldn't blindly trust without verification, otherwise you'll look like the idiots who bought King of Spaghetti's fake facebook post. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 04:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh wow. So you completely disregarded the actual interview. Nice. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 04:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

So would you be opposed (and why you would be opposed) to simply saying that. 'Some supporters' doesn't have the full effect as 'There are two distinct camps in GamerGate, those who make the death and rape threats and those who decry such threats and fight for ethics in journalism.' Tutelary (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would be, at least in that wording, because the vast majority of reliable sources don't describe those camps as equally important and for us to describe them as equal gives undue weight to the claims about ethics. I wouldn't mind using the words "many supporters" rather than "some."

Besides, you omitted a key word in the source's wording — that GamerGate supporters are *claiming* to fight for ethics in journalism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Then why do you propose we put 'some supporters' to differentiate the two if we're not going to actually differentiate the two, like you want to. That's a double standard. You want use to state 'Some supporters do X' while citing this one source for it, but when you say because the vast majority of reliable sources don't describe those camps as equally important and for us to describe them as equal gives undue weight to the claims about ethics. It's either undue weight to differentiate the two to put the 'some supporters' in or it's not undue weight to put the 'some supporters' in in which we should just elaborate on what we mean. Tutelary (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You're conflating two different issues here, which is not indicative of a "double standard." This section is describing the fact that some/many GamerGate supporters are making claims that their movement is about journalism ethics, while the overwhelming majority of mainstream sources reject those claims and view them as a smokescreen hiding its true culture-war motives. Because the movement has no unified leadership, membership or identifiable, agreed-upon manifesto, making a blanket statement that effectively all GamerGate supporters are interested in journalism ethics seems difficult to support. We know that a lot of them are. So how about "the majority of"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

So how are we allowed to do it when it's claiming that GamerGate supporters implicitly support harassment if we can't do it to state that they not all implicitly support ethics in journalism? The sources? Tutelary (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

We're not stating that all GamerGate supporters support harassment. We are stating that the movement is best-known for harassment and a culture war. The sources for that are already in the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Naturally, if media reports something then more people will be aware of what was reported by them. However the problem lies with that "best known" is something that is created from coverage. For instance if you google Gamergate most articles written about it will be anti-GG. How many people actually bother to investigate the matters themselves? And how many people do you believe visit wikipedia and confuse wikipedia for an actual reliable source? So Wikipedia plays a huge roll in the "best known" part, as in this case it helps make GG "best known" as what the media reports it as in their opinion pieces.--Thronedrei (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Most articles that are written about GG take a negative point of view, that's correct. You can decide that this means either a) a whole lot of people have looked at GamerGate and seen nothing but a toxic waste dump or b) there's a massive global media conspiracy cabal trying to hide the truth from the ignorant masses. If you decide b), you're welcome to your belief, but you're not entitled to make this Wikipedia article reflect your fringe ideology. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

But that's not the case. Since you're all board with Hitler lets look at Monsanto, pretty much everyone agrees they are evil, including people for GMO. But look at the wiki article, it doesn't rant about how evil they are, it's not full of quotes calling them evil. HalfHat 15:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"but Hitler". All three articles articles are full of content analyzing the subject's impact and actions. With GG the impact and actions have been limited to harassment and "but ethics". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The sources don't acknowledge third party trolling. Now, before the usual suspects come in to say "ANY1 CAN FLY THE GG FLAG", consider the following. Its very possible for people to fly the anti-gg flag the same way. So, does anti-gg condemn the actions done in its name, since they clearly have a defined leader? Do they condemn the harassment coming from anti-gg supporters? Of course, the narrative doesn't like to go into that possibility. It might give people a bit too much to think. Fine, perhaps there is no conspiracy, but since mainstream media is one of the longterm targets of the pro-gg people, wouldn't that present a bit of reason to smear those who oppose you? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 00:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are suggesting, but is appears to be that we need to ignore WP:V and WP:OR and shape the article based upon your personal observations? I dont think that is appropriate or acceptable WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is this Retartist (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

And the evidence for this, as opposed to the far more likely (and far less conspiratorial) possibility that a whole lot of people independently looked at GamerGate and saw nothing but a toxic waste dump is...?

I can quote xkcd too. Nobody's "censoring" GamerGate. A whole lot of people have listened to what they have to say, and are showing them the door. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I've boldly edited the article to change such things, per this discussion. Tutelary (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

So the issue of "some" gamergaters> "most" gamergates is apparently done.

Now how about removing the weasling going the other way? any opposition? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Present lead

The present lead doesn't reflect the sources, and tries to weasel out of defining what this controversy is about. Reliable sources say it is a controversy about misogyny and harassment. As it stands, the first sentence in this lead does not mention this, but does mention something about "ethnics", and hence is a product of WP:FRINGE. RGloucester — ☎ 20:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and have reinstated the longstanding previous wording which was removed with no discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It was watered down right before someone else blanked the page attempting to speedy delete the whole thing, so it stuck around for a short time unnoticed after the big revert. Simply saying the controversy has "multiple issues" implies equality between the two"sides", which is untrue. Tarc (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"Gamergate controversy" should be a subsection of a Gamergate article. You are never going to gain consensus on a controversial article about a controversy. The genesis of the hastag by Adam Baldwin linked to videos alleging corruption in the gaming industry, so that should be stated first, since it was first. Immediately after that, "many allege it is a front for misogynistic trolls...". The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The "Gamergate movement" is not inherently notable unto itself which is why it doesn't have an article but the controversy surrounding it does. The only reason that there will never be a consensus is because users constantly come in to say that it's biased against them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Clearly it IS notable, since there's a controversy about it. Please note, I did not refer to it as a "movement". The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

clearly it ISNT notable on its own as no one has referenced it outside of the controversy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence didn't mention ethics, the second one did, then the third mention misogyny. HalfHat 12:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for opening sentense

I suggest making it "The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 and concerns multiple issues in video game culture. " because it's just too complex to say what it's about in a balanced fashion in one sentence, the current opening paragraph is a bit confusing I think. HalfHat 22:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Noooooope. You don't get to ignore the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources that this controversy centers around the misogynistic harassment of women in the gaming industry, which is what put GamerGate on the front page of The New York Fucking Times and landed Anita Sarkeesian an interview on The Colbert Report. You are arguing for a false balance that does not exist in the reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, North are we viewing the same sources that you are? The vast majority of sources base it on the fact that it is primarily about that but along with ethics in gaming journalism, even if they criticize it within that same stroke of the word. Putting just 'misogyny and harassment of women' is disengenius tot he sources. Not to mention that in good form of article making, the first sentence should generally define the movement, not just assume that the reader already has an understanding of it. "Gamergate started..." versus "Gamergate is..." I believe the latter is better. How else would you characterize it? Tutelary (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

What exactly makes it "misogynistic"? If the third party trolls had harassed males, would it be just "random harassment" or "misandric harassment" --DSA510 Pls No Hate 23:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

when the only membership criteria is #gamergate - there are no "third party" trolls - the trolls are yours. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

then it works both ways? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 23:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Since you aren't biting, I'll just go out with it. If one were to make a thousand spambots, based on the anti-gg code from the repo I linked, and flew the banner of anti-gg, is that any different? Or, someone flies it to dox pro-gg? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 00:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Your interest in hypothetical spambots is not my concern nor is it appropriate for this talk page which is about how to improve the article. Do you have any specific suggestions about article content or sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

North, "centres around" does not equate to "is". HalfHat 08:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Move "Vivian James" character image from The Fine Young Capitalists to this page?

I'm doing a bit of cleanup on The Fine Young Capitalists. I saw there was an open nonfree content discussion on the Vivian James character image and removed the image from the page - but was reverted due to WP:STICK (which, thank you Tutelary, that makes sense.) But despite that, I think if the image is to be used, it makes far more sense to have the image here instead. I don't think it makes sense to have that image in the article for the company at all, since the image is highly associated with the controversy and not specifically with the company. Since the TFYC page is very overloaded with Gamergate information right now, it would be nice to pare down that part and replace it with neutral company info that is not ostensibly about Gamergate. I added a main-article Gamergate link on that page, so anyone looking for more specifics on GG will be directed here (and thus see the image, and gamergate info, and so on).

Regardless of what the consensus ends up being on that, I would highly recommend that anyone working on this article take a look at The Fine Young Capitalists, as a lot of the info is repeated here - that article is very minimally about the company/group and is mostly about Gamergate right now, and the page is getting very few edits (and in my opinion could really use many more edits!). Thanks & peace! Hustlecat ^{do it!} 00:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I reverted it because in the presumption that people have stopped responding to such a discussion, it's mainly in bad form to restart it especially if it's going to be contentious. (Like the Vivian thing) Though I do think, since there's more discussion about the character here, especially regarding that it was central to this controversy, it should be included in this page and the like. Tutelary (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Does the analysis in the article about the purple/green rape joke link qualify as discussion of the image under FAIR? People pretty much know what purple and green look like. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you still on about that? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 00:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I definitely don't mean to be restarting the fair use discussion, I am considering the image fair use in my comments. I am only looking to improve the TFYC article and this article - I think it should be removed from TFYC for balance purposes, and instead included on this one since it is more relevant here. Sorry for any confusion! Hustlecat ^{do it!} 00:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If I remember right, the actual design is public domain. there's actually an entire booru site for content of her on one of the booru.org things... vivian.booru or vivi.booru. Can't remember which. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 00:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Right, that's fine, I'm not trying to contest that, I'm sorry if it sounded that way (the wonder of text based communication!). I'm saying the image is unnecessary as a detail about The Fine Young Capitalists, and it is more useful to include here. So, the image should be here, since general consensus is it should be somewhere, and the image should be removed from TFYC because that page has an excess of Gamergate info already. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 00:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless in a lineup of characters from TFYC's planned game, she isn't notable on the TFYC page. Who's pushing that anyways? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 00:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

My image removal was reverted because in my removal reason I presumed it was still considered nonfree and I didn't go by WP:STICK. I don't want people to think I am just removing content from the TFYC company page because I don't like it or because of my opinions on the subject. I wanted to find out about whether the image would be placed here first before removing it from the TFYC page with the reason of "it's not relevant to the company itself" since the image is relevant to this subject. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 01:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, there's mention that the character is supposed to be sexist or I don't know what, so a picture of her should be given for readers to judge for themselves, just like the The Fine Young Capitalists article Loganmac (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Loganmac, you should be fairly aware that the character's design is not being called sexist or whatever. The character's mere existence is considered as anti-whatever it is.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Off-Wikipedia, there are actually specific allegations regarding the character design as well: that the color scheme of her hoodie refers to an old in-joke involving (male-on-male fictional character) rape. Unfortunately the sources I've seen for this [14] [15] are in my opinion not sufficiently reliable to support including it in the article here. It seems plausible to me that her initials were also chosen as a sexist joke but I haven't seen sourcing for that either. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

FastCoDesign.com is an extension of Fast Company which is a reliable business source; that would be a completely fine RS to explain this. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

BoingBoing was cited, but was controversial and removed. I think FastCoDesign is fine though. Regarding the initials, I think it's just a coincidence, the purposeful corruption of "Video Games" as her name makes more sense to me. — Strongjam (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request

For those not named who feel the need to weigh in, I have filed an arbitration request regarding this topic area.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors should also be aware that GamerGate supporters have launched an 8chan thread to "investigate" and doxx anyone involved in the ArbCom case. Just FYI. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

They are not doxxing, they are investigating what people have done here on wikipedia, that is fully public and legal. And there should be. Too many people are personally involved in this.--Torga (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If they're not doxxing why are they linking to my Photobucket and Last.fm pages?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

They are looking for bias expressed by editors in the social media space. I'm not sure if that is relevant or not., but that isn't doxxing. Jgm74 (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Just reading through the 8Chan thread now, It appears that they are trying to collate sources to present to ARBCOM. Is that a problem? Jgm74 (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Off-wiki behavior in things unrelated to Wikipedia have no bearing at ArbCom, and ArbCom is not for content disputes it's for user conduct. No matter how many links they come up with for someone with an account to bring up at the case is not going to really change much of anything. Nor are their constant complaints about my comments regarding them on Twitter.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for making that clear - that sounds very sensible. But why don't we wait to see what material people want to forward to ArbCom and then decide whether the material is relevant. Jgm74 (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"SCOUR TWITTER, TUMBLR, WORDPRESS, ANYTHING FOR RYULONG, TARAINDC, THEREDPENOFDOOM, OR NORTHBYHEADUPASS" is certainly a good-faith effort at contributing to a discussion about Wikipedia policy, yes. GamerGate supporters literally can't stop shooting themselves in the feet. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

They haven't done any of that in any of the threads I've seen pop up. It's just repeating all of the pro-GG links they want to be used in the article and apparently someone they're shutting up for saying they should troll me into oblivion or murder.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not surprising that the thugs are doing this. Intimidation is how they operate. That's why nearly all reliable sources condemn them. If ever there was a reason to doubt that reliable sources we use are correct, it's time for all decent people to take off the blinders. --TS 07:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The threads in question are digging for either sources, or evidence of collusion. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 08:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The point of ArbCom is hanging other Wikipedians out to dry not to continue a content dispute.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there anyway we could place a sort of warning or notice?

A lot of information in this article is biased and much of it is very opinionated. Rather than continuously argue about who's right and who's wrong, is there anyway we could place a sort of warning to alert readers that these events are ongoing and that a definite conclusion hasn't been reached, and that the contents of this article are highly susceptible to change? It's apparent to me that the information being provided is too subjective and the premature conclusions one draws from reading the article do not adequately cover both sides of the story. Even if one side is misogynistic or the other side is devoid of ethics, both need to be given fair treatment despite how the other side feels. --Digman14 (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

We already have one: the "neutrality is disputed" message at the top. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 04:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The notice that is on there at the moment is intended to highlight immediate and serious concerns with an article, that the tagger is then expected to raise on the talk page. It is not meant to be used as it currently is being used, as a sort of Scarlet Letter to express a minor it point-of-view. Almost 2 weeks ago I noted this, and stated that the tag would be removed on the 6th. That has no passed, and I will give it until tomorrow, then it comes off and it will stay off. The majority of reliable sources at present show "Gamergate" as a controversy about harassment of women in the gaming industry, with a counter-argument of "it's about ethics" to be a secondary and minor point-of-view. Several editors have presented arguments to reverse that, but they have failed to achieve consensus. Tarc (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No it wont, if you take it off, i will put it back in again. Because you DO NOT DECIDE that. --Torga (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors, especially ones not here for a valid purpose, will not be allowed to misuse project tags to advance their point-of-view agendas. As I noted above, the tag is used to draw attention to an immediate concern, bring it to the talk page, where the matter is resolved. The article cannot be moved away form its current focus on misogyny and harassment, as that is based on solid reliable sourcing as this project requires. Those who have tried have had over a month now to make their case, but have failed to achieve consensus. 1 month is far, far, far more time than is generally allowed. Tarc (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the bullying tactic where you guys go ahead and do whaterver you want, and then when people changes it, you say that they need concensus and discussion is not working anymore. The biased sticker will stay. --Torga (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

What is a "bias tag"? Artw (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• The tag should stay until there is consensus that the article is neutral. I very much doubt that there is such a consensus. Sure, the reliable sources depict a lot on harassment. But the key question is, does the article reflect the sources in a neutral manner? starship.paint ~ regal 05:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mr. Random: What exactly are you looking for? "We took gamergate to the lab and under the electron microscope we determined that gamergate has a rating of 127 on the Lepine Misogyny Scale and a PR Success value of -3 Drapers" Of course an article about a hashtag is going to consist of analysis and commentary. And per WP:NPOV#UNDUE the analysis and commentary will be reflective of what the reliable sources say about the subject. Which bundle of reliable sources is lacking or misrepresented in the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No we should never endorse opinion no matter how popular. "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." HalfHat 12:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Where specifically are there "endorsements" or these "tone" issues? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

NPOV tag removal, Nov 10th, late

Just so it is a bit more prominent, but not really worth of its own heading, since it was touched on above...

Per my comments a few weeks ago, it has now been five weeks since this article was tagged for NPOV concerns. User have had thirty-five days to raise their concerns above neutrality, and while things may not have resolved to their liking, this project operates on consensus, and one was not reached that these concerns have merit. If anything, there is consensus that the article as it stands and the direction it goes is a neutral reflection of what reliable sources say on the topic. I'm sorry, but the sources do not support the contention that Gamergate is a controversy of ethics in gaming journalism

The NPOV tag is not a raised fist of protest, nor is it a Scarlet Letter. It has had 5 weeks, and now it is time to go. Unless someone does so beforehand (as I am heading to bed) I will be removing it in ~12 hours, and if editors unwisely choose to edit-war over the matter, we will go to WP:ANI, where I'm fairly confident that the protests of "I disagree!" and "It's biased!" will have many sympathetic ears. The single-purpose accounts should be especially wary here. Tarc (talk) 05:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC) −

• Nope - what's the point of this ultimatum ... do you have consensus that the article is neutral? There is a significant number of editors who believed that the article is not neutral. See Talk:Gamergate controversy/RFC1#Q2: Is the current Gamergate article too biased in this manner?. starship.paint ~ regal 05:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• NoIt is biased and the tag should stand. There is clearly no concensus to remove it--Torga (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Re. removal of NPOV tag. The neutrality issue hasn't been resolved. I've been watching the TALK page the last 5 weeks and there has been no progress. There are two editors who have set the tone of the article. There are two others who protest the neutrality of the article. The tone of the talk page is adversarial and sufficiently hostile that other people are loath to be involved. There has been no progress. The NPOV should not be removed. The first sentence makes a judgement of one group in the controversy rather than providing an impartial introduction to the participants of the controversy. The remainder of the article is similarly written. The article is unreadable to the casual reader. IMO the article appears so biased that the casual reader will ignore it. This does not benefit anyone, and it doesn't benefit those editors who are being accused of bias. Jgm74 (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• No, per Starship and Jgm74's remarks about the dispute. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 06:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• How about no per starship, there is an ongoing dispute, IT STAYS Retartist (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  This "dispute" has been going on for a month.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• No. I'm still finding multiple violations of WP:Say, the intro is also very questionable.HalfHat 08:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Nope consensus hasn't been reached jet per Starship.paint, the intro still has to be worked on. Avono (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not a vote. The tag is not to be used as a "scarlet letter." It's been some time since a credible case could be made that the article doesn't substantially reflect the consensus of reliable sources. It's long past time the tag came off. --TS 12:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Per the tag's instructions ["The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor."] Given that not one of the !votes above has articulated an actionable issue, and it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag should go. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  Well I went ahead and removed the tag with an edit summary explaining why. It's back. What next? Don't we have discretionary sanctions to deal with this kind of SPA-related problem? --TS 12:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well done. You have ignored an entire RFC on concerns about the neutrality of the article. Talk:Gamergate controversy/RFC1. I do acknowledge the majority of reliable sources do depict harassment, etc. But, to quote Masem, we are instead giving the antiGG side far too much coverage, to the point of being preachy on how "right" the antiGG side is, and how bad the proGG side is. This is evidenced by certain phrasing, excessive use of the negative words "harassment" and "misogyny" (and forms thereof), and overuse of near-full quotes from antiGG sources when they are not needed for explaining the key parts of the narrative. That is the specific neutrality problem in the article. starship.paint ~ regal 13:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The RFC, though correct in form, is clearly an inexpert attempt to perform an end run around policy. The first question, "Can an article become too biased in the favor of the side with the plurality of sources?" has a clear answer in Wikipedia policy: no. This is not the wiki you are looking for. --TS 13:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem to think that your "no" answer is fact, but it is instead an opinion. Many other editors answered "yes" in the RFC. Plainly put, you're not the boss. starship.paint ~ regal 13:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a fact that follows from our policy. The overwhelming consensus of reliable sources is that Gamergate is a misogynistic harassment campaign, and so that's what we have to write about. We're not about to relax NPOV just because some editors disagree with it. --TS 13:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The overwhelming consensus of reliable sources (which so far happens to be the media) is that Gamergate is a misogynistic harassment campaign. I don't deny this. The problem is not the sources. The problem is how the article is using the sources. Please read the green words above, by Masem. starship.paint ~ regal 13:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, NPOV tag requires "The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." Your assessment "The problem is how the article is using the sources. " Is neither specific nor actionable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Note; this wasn't a vote, this was posted to be informative. 3 hours to go, and as I said last night, I'd advise careful thought before making a stand on this. Already, editors with no part in this topic area at all easily recognize this as an abuse of project tagging and have attempted removal. Tarc (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Editors here saying 'no' need to do stop re-instate the tag with vague reasoning. Specific and actionable reasons are needed to be helpful. — Strongjam (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• No, as per Jgm74. The tone of the article and talk page is adversarial and sufficiently hostile to repel both reader and editor alike from this article. It is also astonishingly that WP:BLPSTYLE is being so thoroughly ignored in every aspect. What reader would describe this article as written in a dispassionate tone, in a non-partisan manner, and that it is avoiding both understatements and overstatements? Criticism and praise is not added conservatively, or written in a disinterested tone, and that is the main reason why the NPOV tag should stay up until resolved. Belorn (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Lolno Per WP:NPOV --DSA510 Pls No Hate 17:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Remove: There is no remaining NPOV issue, merely a vocal group of POV pushers, openly collaborating a campaign on 8chan to make this page more favorable to GamerGate. AN/I is going to be needed. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not pushing a POV, as this is going to be weighing on the antiGG side, but there is a huge impartialness problem with this article that falls under NPOV as well that I'm arguing for, and the NPOV Tag has to stay until that is addressed. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, but you have to allow for the possibility that your opinion on what is or is not NPOV may not carry the day. The tag doesn't remain until you are personally satisfied with a result. Tarc (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
      • If it was clear I was the only person fighting for it, yeah, that's TE, I'd not fight its removal. But it's clear (even discounting SPAs) that there's issues with the NPOV-ness, and any attempt to discuss with via consensus building is shot down immediately. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Remove: Tarc is right in saying that saying "actually, it's about ethics in gaming journalism" a thousand times doesn't make it any more true. The idea that it's about ethics in gaming journalism simply isn't bourne out by the sources. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep tag until the situation is resolved. SPAs or not, clearly a number of established editors are seeing a problem, and the discussion on this page proves it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  quite clearly, per the tag instructions, someone claiming to see an issue is not a valid criteria. they must be able to articulate a specific instance of NPOV issues, where the content does not appropriately reflect the sources available. there is not an option "if enough people are vaguely whinging , they must be appeased by hanging the NPOV as a 'warning'." (in fact the instructions say quite the opposite.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Reading the article and the talk pages, I see the problem. This isn't vague whining, it's a problem of the sources, of the tone, of the point of view of the article. When that's sorted, I agree the tag should be removed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy

ANI filing

Well, if I were to draw a football analogy, I'd say I was just tripped by some grudge-bearers, so someone else is going to have to scoop up the ball and run with it, if you want this article to be less Hester Prynne-ish. Tarc (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Article way too long

I know this has been a controversial and current issue, but the article is currently at 120k. I searched the archives for this topic but only found a brief exchange that didn't seem to come to a resolution. Per WP:Article size it needs to be broken up or heavily edited. I've been uninvolved in this so far, but just looking at the last paragraph of the lede it contains almost entirely redundant information. What would make more sense to people? Heavily editing the article down or creating separate articles like "Harassment issues related to Gamergate" and "Ethical Concerns of Gamergate", etc. PearlSt82 (talk) 06:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Call me pragmatic a pessimist but there's little chance of any consensus on such thing. I foresee UNDUE being plastered across this section. Why not wait until it's mostly over and then edit it down? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Making content forks is the last thing we need on this topic. It should be cut down more but not cut apart.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Addressing (without changing any other content) the WP:QUOTEFARM problems would help. We don't need full pull quotes from every possible source, but just highlight any key words, particularly those more difficult to paraphrase with losing intent/meaning. (The prose is just at 86k, which is heading towards where reduction or split would be needed, but I agree 100% splitting off parts of this is the very very last thing we want to do.) --MASEM (t) 06:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

One mini-paragraph which is too long IMO is the Vivian James colour scheme thingy. Whoa. starship.paint ~ regal 09:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's two sentences at best.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't be disingenuous, Ryulong. It was two sentences and 128 words. The next paragraph is 81 words. Good Lord. I trimmed it now. starship.paint ~ regal 13:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I advocate for splitting off the whole "Quinnspiracy". It is the initiating event, but has very little to do with the current form of the controversy. Racuce (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The "Quinnspiracy" is central to this because this is a controversy over harassment of female voices in video gaming and not corruption in video game journalism no matter how many times people on /gg/ and r/KotakuInAction say it is.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, I don't think subparts of this are notable enough to break up the article, and all cases you'd need toread that article to understand this so it'd be quite pointless. So yeah we need to start cutting, the article has too much opinion, redundancies, and is generally poorly structured. HalfHat 09:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No. There is not going to be any sort of cutting this article apart to get rid of things that put the movement in a bad light. It can be cut down to keep the relevant content shorter but there is no need to split things apart. No content forking. This is an article about the whole of Gamergate because its individual parts are not notable on their own.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly why you cause problems here, I said that I agree we probably shouldn't be making split, yet you still argue with me in a highly uncivil manner. I also love your constant baseless assumption that I'm an evil agenda pushing SPA of dooom! HalfHat 09:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop commenting on other editors and their suspected motives and stay focused on article content and sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:Article size the prose size should only be counted and wiki mark-up excluded. If we do that the prose size comes in at 58 kB per User:Dr_pda/prosesize. This puts us in the recommended range (albeit near the limit.) The rest of the 120k is mark-up and references. — Strongjam (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

We could start making estimates of how much "screen time" the various aspects of the controversy are getting in the current analysis and then model our article after them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Are there even any RSs that covered the controversy as a whole and not just bits? Most just focus on one event or person, the only ones I've seen that try to cover the whole thing are other wikis. HalfHat 12:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

We have several up through the terrorist threat at Utah. Pretty much the only thing since then has been the attacks on Felicia Day. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a simple question. If the dispute is primarily about the lede, why does it have to say that Gamer Gate is about ONE thing? It's clearly about multiple concerns to different participants. And I think RS would back it up that there are fundamentally different goals, objectives and POVs depending on how you view this subject. Is it really crucial to isolate ONE meaning to the movement/hashtag? Can we rewrite the lede to allow for the fact that different groups are viewing this dispute through quite different aspects. Like most complicated issues (politics, religion, economy, etc.) there is not a single overwhelming interpretation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Because those disputing the lede possess a minority view on what Gamergate is. The majority view is that while the movement claims to be about ethics in journalism but everyone sees extensive misogyny and harassment.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

because there is no controversy about "ethics in journalism" - the responses from the sources is just a flat "you kids dont know what you are talking about. 1) these claims of ethical breach are false. 2) those claims arent about 'ethics' 3) silencing other voices is unethical journalism 4) this actual ethics breach which involved a major developer and no women received no interest from the gamergate community. " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

There are numerous NPOV issues with this article. The most simple and easy to fix is the violation of WP:Say I keep finding, these are very frequent. The tone of the intro clearly endorses one side. Wikipedia reflects verifiable facts not popular opinions. "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." Also ". . . opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views,". Ofcourse it does say "Avoid stating facts as opinions." however it adds the caviot, "Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information," so even if we grant that it being about misogyny is uncontested, GG has partly become about if it's fundamentally about journalistic ethics or misogyny, so that caviot would apply here. Even highly antiGG sources will refer to this argument as "but ethics" so clearly it significant. There's more but that come later and there's people better placed to argue than me, so this is just a basic case, making quotes so you can check what I'm saying. HalfHat

Read NPOV here HalfHat 13:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

As repeatedly discussed here, the fact that the worldwide controversy over GamerGate is about misogyny and harassment of women is indisputable. The New York Fucking Times didn't run a front-page article about "but ethics," it ran a front-page article about GamerGate supporters harassing and threatening women in gaming. We mention GamerGate supporters' assertion that their movement is about ethics, but the public controversy has entirely ignored their claims. Therefore, it is entirely neutral to state that the controversy is about misogyny and harassment. "Neutral" does not mean "balanced" — if the reliable sources overwhelmingly agree on something, then our articles reflect that weight. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

But we don't agree with them. HalfHat 13:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well at least you're being honest in specifying that your disagreement is with what reliable sources are saying rather than how we represent reliable sources. --TS 13:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't agree with them, that's obvious. But effectively all of the reliable sources do. Wikipedia articles are written based on what is verifiable in reliable sources. It is trivial to demonstrate, and has been demonstrated here repeatedly, that mainstream reliable sources treat the "ethics" claims dismissively, if at all, and repeatedly discuss the fact that the movement hasn't even made any meaningful ethics claims to begin with. Please see the multiple threads above, wherein actual experts in journalism ethics (The Columbia Journalism Review and On the Media, to name two) review GamerGate's claims and find nothing of significance. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

But while we can say they treated them dismissively that doesn't mean we should share their tone. HalfHat 13:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "share their tone." The lede spells out what reliable sources say about this issue explicitly and succinctly — there is a controversy about misogyny and harassment, a movement's supporters say they're about journalism ethics while everyone else says they're not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter one iota if you agree with them or not. WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean "we" as in me personally or as editors, but as the article. I mean the article shouldn't endorse popular opinion as fact. HalfHat 15:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Where exactly is this happening? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"I feel that the tone of the article clearly endorses one side" isn't, in and of itself, a policy-based a NPOV concern. NPOV is not about dividing an article's subject into arbitrary sides and assigning equal weight to each; it is about reflecting what the most credible and reputable sources on the subject say. The current article generally summarizes these voices in a neutral tone. Your objection, as I understand it, is that you feel that the vast majority of the usually-reputable sources are, in this case, wrong; you object to a summary of these voices because you feel the sources themselves are non-neutral. But that is not an issue that can be resolved on Wikipedia, nor is it (according to our policies) a POV issue. Our role as an encyclopedia is merely to cover reputable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:IMPARTIAL is a part of NPOV, so yes, the article speaking in a tone that endorses one side can be (and in some eyes like mine, is) a problem. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please point out for action where IMPARTIAL is not being appropriately implemented. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

First sentence puts too much weight on an after-effect, despite the effect being the most-talked about once it happened. Section above about the long section I changed and reverted by North, the current order gives no attempt to give any credible notion that the GG have legit claims, and gets as fast to the press's response. (Impartially, we shouldn't care if the claims are legit or not - if we can source them, we need to) Excessively long, and in some cases duplicating in thought (mostly in the section on role of misogyny and harasssment) pull quotes that are just there to keep pushing the opinion "GGers are bad, evil people". --MASEM (t) 16:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, so not anything actually IMPARTIAL in our presentation, just things that when we follow WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS we give the same impression that the reliable sources do that gg is a smokescreen for harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

100% wrong. "GG as a screen for harassment" is not a fact. It is a strong, pervasive public opinion, and one that dominates the discussion for sure, but it is not fact. As such, we don't treat it as fact, and instead write what little we can starting from the viewpoint that GG is legit, and then from the counterpoint that GG is not. We're not going to have "balanced" coverage in terms of equal time for each side, there's no way we can do that, but we can still achieve impartiality with appropriate construction and wording: eg [16] when I made that edit, zero antiGG sources were removed and zero proGG sources were added (if anything it added more antiGG sources); the only major change was to present the details in a normal point-counterpoint format as you would any debate. The weight of antiGG/proGG remained unchanged, but the impartialness of the section was significantly improved. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Nobody said it was a fact: only that that's the impression most reasonable people will get after reading the reliably sourced facts of the case. Framing all of our sources as either 'pro-GG' and 'anti-GG' is a bad habit, by the way. Opinion sources may be seen that way, but calling reliable news publications 'anti-GG' is innappropriate. They're reporting facts, not opinions. I disagree that your edit 'significantly improved' the 'imparialness' of the section. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been observing this page for a while, and I've found it fascinating. I read two good newspapers everyday, but I rarely hear anything about this mess, other than one article and one op-ed in The New York Times. It is almost unknown, to most people. It very much surprises me that it makes such a mess here. Seems like a storm in a teacup. Regardless, I think the biggest problem we have here, partially fuelled by Masem, is that the building of this article is being framed in terms of "pro-Gamergate" and "anti-Gamergate". That is not how we build an article. Our job is not to reflect equally the points-of-view of people that are either "pro-Gamergate" or "anti-Gamergate". Our job is to write an encyclopaedia, based in the concept of verifiability and reliable sources. We reflect the due weight given to points-of-view in reliable sources. If there is a consensus in reliable sources, we reflect that consensus. We do not go out of our way to portray fringe points-of-view as equivalent to that consensus. That would be what our policy on neutral point-of-view calls WP:GEVAL, and is entirely inappropriate. We are not here to strike a balance. We never have been. We are not here to take a side in this dispute. We never have been. We are here to write an article documenting what has happened from a historical perspective. To do this, we use reliable sources, and the facts that provide. We do not seek out fringe sources, nor do we seek to make the article a dialectical form that presents a thesis and anti-thesis. In other words, Masem, your conception of this article and the process of creating it is entirely wrong. I fear you are too personally involved to see that. RGloucester — ☎ 17:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Impartialness is not the same as balanced. This is well explained on the NPOV page. And the issue is decidedly two-sided; the proGG have framed it that way for themselves. But again, I'm clearly not asking for equal balance of the two sides, but that we stay impartial to either side, which does require use to consider which side arguments fall on to build a neutral logical debate of what GG is. --MASEM (t) 17:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Then stop demanding that we falsely portray this debate as having anything to do with "journalism ethics" except for the fact that GamerGate supporters recite it like a magic talisman. Yes, we get it, GamerGate supporters think they're talking about journalism ethics. Literally everyone else says no, you're not actually talking about journalism ethics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't understand. Impartialness means not judging (normatively) the viewpoints of people in Wikipedia's own register, which would be editorialising. I.e. we do not write "Gamergate is bad". It does not mean that we do not report the facts that reliable sources say, nor does it mean that we try to obfuscate the reality reported in those sources. There is no debate. This is an encyclopaedia article, not a forum for debates. It is a documentation of historical reality. RGloucester — ☎ 17:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Specifically where and how is our "documentation" not reflective of the reliable sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm responding to Masem, who is proposing that thesis and anti-thesis be injected into the article. I haven't read the article, nor do I plan on doing so, so I have no idea what it says at the moment. RGloucester — ☎ 18:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

First sentence puts too much weight on an after-effect, despite the effect being the most-talked about once it happened. How so? What is the 'effect' here and what the 'after-effect?' Do you mean the accusations against Quinn are the 'effect?' Can you support your claim that the 'effect' was most talked about in reliable sources 'once it happened?' Certainly there was a metric shitton of online gossip about Quinn, but that's not relevant because it's not what we have sources for: whether it happened or not is not as important as whether reliable sources found it significant enough to report on. Please point to places where we are 'pushing the opinion "GGers are bad, evil people;"' reporting reliably sourced information that is likely to lead a reader to think less of gamergate is not 'pushing an opinion,' and our article does need to discuss every issue it covers in the way the sources do, which means we can't hold back 'negative' information because it might make people think gamergate is 'bad.' If reality has a distinct anti-GG bias, that's not our fault. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

What the first sentence is doing is saying "The Iraq War was about the US spreading democracy" or "...getting cheap oil"; it's certainly widely believed in public opinion to be that but there's an actual chain of events that include the WMD, insurgency, etc. The problem here is that we don't have a good chain of reportable events/concepts prior to Gjoni's post to know the situation accurately through RSes, so we have an event that only really came to light with the charges against Quinn and then the subsequent harassment. And while the proGG built up their case about ethics (as little as their was) the harassment continued and the calls of misogyny started to fly. As such we have a controversy with no well-established cause but clearly two sides. So the way to get the first paragaph in the lead impartial is simply to move the calls about harassment and misogyny to the third sentence where the press's reaction to the situation since that is a clear dominating factor in the debate. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a valid comparison. Do the majority of reliable sources say that the Iraq war was about spreading democracy or getting cheap oil? It doesn't matter that we don't have 'a good chain of reportable events' prior to Gjoni's accusations against Quinn being blown up into a large-scale harassment campaign: we report on the events we have sources for. If there were no sources on the 'chain of events' leading up to the Iraq war we wouldn't be writing about those on Wikipedia, either. We're not going to 'bury the lead' because you think it's not fair that the press isn't talking enough about whatever 'chain of events' you think are the gamergate analog to the leadup to the Iraq war. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I would also note that this isn't an article about the hashtag, but about the controversy. The controversy primarily concerns misogyny and harassment, and why it's notable. Otherwise this article would have never survived deletion. — Strongjam (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, "impartial" is not the same as "balanced". Here is what I mean:

• Current lead para: The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 and concerns misogyny and harassment in video game culture. Many supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #gamergate) say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism. Commentators and critics have said that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture.
• Impartial lead para: The Gamergate controversy began in the video game culture in August 2014. Many supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #gamergate) say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism. Commentators and critics have said that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture, and mainstream media has widely condemned the movement as unorganized, sexist and misogynistic due to continued harassment and threats towards female personalities in the video game industry despite their purported claims of ethics concerns.

It's a standard "point-counterpoint" style, and even with the added material that is anti-GG, clearly shows which way the sources are balanced. It's just that flip of the wording that flips it from partial to impartial without changing the balance. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Your proposed lead para is distinctly parial in that it gives undue weight to an aspect of the 'controversy' that has essentially no reliable sources. This isn't an article about gamergate, it's an article about the controversy surrounding gamergate. The "standard point-counterpoint" style you're proposing gives the impression that the gamergate controversy is over whether gamergate is about misogyny or ethics. If that were true, there would be far more sources discussing and examining the ethics issues. The controversy is about the misogynistic harassment which is well established by reliable sources as the primary effect of the movement, not 'is it ethics or is it misogyny?' No source is giving any serious attention to the claim that gamergate is about ethics beyond reporting that some people say that and then going on to discuss the women who are being 'ethically' hounded out of their careers. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. The controversy is not about harassment/misogyny, because save for a vocal minority and/or trolls doing the harassment, even GG supporters agree that harassment/misogyny is bad, and there's question it should not be happening. Harassment/misogyny is a prominent result of the controversy, but it is not the central topi of it. A controversy needs (at least) two sides to be such. In this case, the controversy at it's core is about the supporters' ethical concerns, which have then subsequently underwhelming by the lack of any specifics or where they have been specifics, the lack of reasonable actions to take for them, the lack of organization, and the fact harassment and misogynistic threats continue, tainting any message that the GG side has - that's the other side of the debate. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. There is no controversy over ethics. The 'controversy' is not 'is gamergate about ethics or harassment?' If that were the case our sources would be giving the ethics issue serious attention. They're not. The controversy is over the movement's abusive behavior. That's what the sources are about. That's why the article was able to pass the GNG. It's a controversy over the gaming community's treatment of women. 'But ethics' is a side issue and should absolutely not be given equal weight in the lede in the name of 'impartiality.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes there has been controversy over the ethics - there are two clear points: conflicts of interest, and writing "objective reviews". These points, alone, have been criticized and refuted by the antiGG side which we have in the article - that's the crux of the actual debate. What has happened is that the controversy has been overwhelmed by the actions or lack of thereof by those under the GG banner, giving a huge amount of coverage about the harassment, the effects that has had, and overwhelmed the core debate. Again "impartial" is not the same as "weight". It is about not taking a side in the situation. By immediately identifying the controversy as one side has decided it should be and not explaining the other side in the same sentence, and in WP's voice, that's not impartial. --MASEM (t) 18:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let's see some sources that treat gamergate as a controversy about ethics, as opposed to mentioning that some people say it's about ethics and then going on to discuss the harassment coming out of the movement. If the bulk of articles written about this controversy are primarily discussing harassment, then that is what the controversy is about. Trivial mentions of ethics claims in articles about harassment don't make this into a controvert about ethics. Can you find some articles that briefly mention the harassment of women and go on to discuss gamergate's ethics claims as something other than vague and ill-informed handwaving? -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"as opposed to mentioning that some people say it's about ethics and then going on to discuss the harassment coming out of the movement." - There are no problems with using those articles - they actually are the voice of the highest quality RS/least biased in the debate. You cannot dismiss those as "trivial" mentions of the ethics, because they actually do identify them and then, like an impartial source, explain why others find them bad. That's the controversy. --MASEM (t) 18:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Masem, "objective reviews" are not even an issue of journalism ethics, period. That is an indisputable fact, the end. There is no such thing as an "objective review" to begin with. You will not find a single code of journalism ethics which says anything about the alleged concept, nor will you find any expert in journalism ethics giving the slightest credence to this claim. Again, it's a demonstration of GamerGate's cargo cult science approach to "journalism ethics." They are repeating words which they do not even understand the meaning of. Stop demanding that we treat fringe, unsupported nonsense as a meaningful argument. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Whenever people talk about "objective reviews" I'm reminded of Jim Sterling's 100% Objective Review of Final Fantasy XIII. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes there is. An objective review is something Consumer reports does - they will rate things on a very strong objective scale (with some subjective aspects) and present a final score, with some but minimum commentary. But as well described by sources countering this point, video games, if art, cannot be reviewed in the same way, and this point has clearly been highlighted by the press. But that means that we can identify the want of objective reviews as a key starting point. The GG logic that I understand is that it is want reviews that are objective in that they might consider the story and provide praise or commentary on that, but the review should also look at all other facets and if it is something like a notgame, it needs to be called out and rated negatively on that. Of course, I'm sure many of us agree that's a terrible standard for reviews, but it is a point that we can document on their side. It might be "junk science" but just like our other articles on notable conspiracy theories and fringe topics, we at least present their arguments without comment first, and then give all the counterpoints and criticism about it. This is how we do appropriate treat fringe topics. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, Consumer Reports' reviews are not "objective" and you will never find Consumer Reports stating that their reviews are objective.

Masem, you're still failing to get the point. At best, this argument is an opinion about the way people write reviews. It has nothing whatsoever to do with actual mainstream conceptions of journalism ethics, period, the end. Arguing that people should write reviews differently just factually, fundamentally is not making a serious argument about journalism ethics. It's making an argument about someone's personal preference.

That's great that GamerGaters want a certain kind of review. They're welcome to write their own reviews that make them happy. They're not entitled to demand that everyone else write reviews the way they want, or else. That is not an issue of journalism ethics except insofar as GamerGate is unethically attempting to impose its opinion of what reviews should be on everyone else. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually it does, in their logic, because when they ignore all facets of a game and only focus on a story element (for example, in the case of Gone Home or DQ), the GG side states that they are not performing their (paraphrasing) proper ethical duties as an objective review for a consumer. Again, some of this starts to get into Insane Troll Logic (borrowing a phrase from TV Tropes) that I'm sure most of us cannot agree with, but that is all sourcable with good RSes that this is what they believe. It is no different from those demanding Obama's US birth certificate in terms of fringe, but we still need to give them the time of day. (And yes, actually Consumer Reports prides itself on objective testing, including changing policy when they were accosted with reviewing a pre-production iPad and reported they will no longer review pre-production models [17]). --MASEM (t) 20:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, and now you're getting to the heart of it - "in their logic," and we are not required to accept or give credence to their WP:FRINGE "logic" which no one else gives credence to. And no, there is no such thing as an objective review, the end. Masem, "objective testing" is not the same as "objective review." Let's hypothetically say we're reviewing clothes washers. Specific tests may be objective (how many pairs of pants fit into a washer), but their review conclusions are not. Weighting the results of those different objective tests is an inherently-subjective process. What if one washer gets clothes 5% cleaner, but takes 7% longer than the next washer, uses 3% more water and holds 1% fewer clothes? Which washer is "objectively" better? Well, kind of depends, right? - what's more important, speed of the wash, thoroughness of the wash, water usage or capacity? See, that's a subjective opinion which someone is going to end up choosing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. To be impartial on a fringe topic, we do have to explain the fringe-y side in so much as RSes do - otherwise it is an attack article. See, for example Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Of course, here, we have a tiny handful of good RSes that go into detail so we're not going to be spending a significant amount of time on the fringe view (as I've said elsehwere, what might amount to 3-4 paragraphs at most given present sourcing), and ten times that many sources that go "while they have these concerns, they aren't workable" or "while they have these concerns, their actions don't seem to be bear out". The better RSes do not simply dismiss the GG side with no coverage at all, but like what we want to do, they don't spend a lot of time to justify that they are valid and move onto the criticism of the movement. And on the CS part: this is what games want - they want games rated in 5-8 different areas and so they can go "oh this game has a great story but no gameplay, I'll pass", which is the same as CS's ratings, but yeah, I concede that's the not the same as reviews, but this is how GG is presenting their case, with the oxymoron of "objective reviews". --MASEM (t) 20:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, we have to explain it as the RSes do. And no reliable source explains GamerGate's obsession with "objective reviews" as a journalism ethics issue. They explain it, as The Washington Post does, as a difference of opinion over whether games are art, specifically stating (GamerGate supporters) should also understand what it is that they are seeking, rather than pretending that they pursue some sort of more ethical model of journalism. I have no problem with writing "Gamergate supporters believe "objective reviews" are a journalism ethics issue," so long as we follow it up with "but everyone else rejects that claim." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with writing "Gamergate supporters believe "objective reviews" are a journalism ethics issue," so long as we follow it up with "but everyone else rejects that claim." - for the most part, I agree exactly with this (the "but everyone else..." may not be the same sentence but it will absolutely be the next logical thought in the following sentence, but that's a grammar issue). Per WP:FRINGE, specifically "Reporting on the levels of acceptance", we have Wales' way to do things like this : "Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it." (my emphasis) In this case, the amount of ink the minority view will get is tiny, but we still report on the little there can be with some bit of respect that what the GG side says is what they believe. And then we get to pile on the counterpoints. Doing this at the few points in the article (the lead para, and the section on their ethics concerns like my rewrite) would take away one major impartial aspect I have with the article. The majority would would be handled by looking to trim down quotes from full on multi-sentence pulls and reducing the number used. That would leave various minor points that would, I feel, would be much easier to resolve, as long as it is understood we should be approaching this like FRINGE, and that until more proGG sources come about, we aren't going to have any ability to support the proGG argument outside the few statements already present in the article. --MASEM (t) 21:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"until more proGG sources come about". Good luck with that. soon we will start seeing the academic papers and while there are departments of ethics and journalism and women's studies, there are no departments of "but ethics". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not holding my breath, unless something massively changes in the GG moderates' approach. That said, I would expect in the future (years, not months) academics will explain the awkward ideals that GG sought, because there are interesting social aspects there in terms of whole "death of gamer identity" aspect and how it manifested itself. But we absolutely for sure have to wait for those to give any more details on what GG listed beyond what is already sourced in the article. --MASEM (t) 04:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It isn't interesting at all. It is what we call being a "reactionary", and has been a common response to such fates for centuries. RGloucester — ☎ 14:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Arb Break

This "strong, pervasive public opinion" is the majority view on Gamergate as a movement. Whether or not that opinion is the 100% truth is not what Wikipedia is set out to determine. It is not our place to give the "ethics in video game journalism" a more prominent place or in any stretch of the policies and guidelines to downplay the fact that everyone sees it as a group of people involved in misogynistic harassment using their claims of corrupt journalists on a bunch of video game websites where they're just pissed off that they dare not to just give random games 10 out of 10 and be done with it but instead say "why does this character have large tits" or give any focus to non-traditional games with narrative themes that aren't going to show up in Call of Duty Modern Warfare, Saints Row Gat out of Hell, or the next Elder Scrolls game. Gamergate's focus is on not liking actual reviews of a game's story and praise of games that focus entirely on story and not on 360noscoping an alien's head off. So Masem, please stop trying to be a moderate here.

GG is not and has never been a legitimate cause. It started with falsely ledged complaints that Zoe Quinn used her feminine wiles to get positive coverage for Depression Quest that never existed on Kotaku so then they change their story and complain about Quinn being quoted heavily in the GAME_JAM piece and Depression Quest getting some sort of vague preferential mentioning on a list of 50 games that were getting full releases on Steam in his work as a writer for Rock Paper Shotgun as their evidence of "corruption". And when none of those claims were treated seriously and were debunked by Grayson admitting his relationship with Quinn and subsequent timeline that showed he never wrote about her after they began dating or any of Gamergate's other claims of corruption or games journalists being too close to developers (the fact that an indie dev is someone's roommate is the only one that comes to mind right now) were also never paid any mind by anyone, they set their sights on attacking all of the websites that wrote scathing pieces regarding their actions and how the notion of the "gamer" being a white male was dead we are at where we are now. Gawker is no longer a reliable source on any matters regarding Gamergate because of Operation Baby Seal. Gamasutra and Time aren't reliable sources (according to Gamergate) because of Leigh Alexander. No prior existing media is a reliable source because the media is protecting its own because people at the BBC and CNN would give a shit about a bunch of video gaming news blogs.

Everything negative about Gamergate is an opinion because the people doing all of the negative things can't possibly be part of Gamergate. No one in Gamergate sent in that threat to USU. It was some Brazilian clickbait blogger. Gamergate was never mentioned by the people posting the addresses of Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, Felicia Day, or anyone else that's come up. Nor was Gamergate ever mentioned in the threats to the first three women's lives. So these events surely can never be related. That's Gamergate's incredibly skewed point of view here. It's been called out as the No true Scotsman fallacy again and again.

But now their focus is on fucking with Wikipedia's meta processes as much as possible, as is evident of their "Operation Exit the Dragon" to get me out of the picture which included finding my accounts on Photobucket and last.fm in their weird backwards way of proving Encyclopedia Dramatica's page on me where it says I was sexually involved with Danny which was based on the ravings of LamontStormstar on Wikipedia Review. Or their current pisspoor attempts to dig up anything against us, and make sure to implore people that they mean on Wikipedia and not in our social media accounts such as their constant and repeated attempts to discredit me by linking to the Tweets I made where I used "fag" and cursed out any fucking GamerGater that went and complained at me after that as evidence that I'm biased and therefore should not be allowed to edit this page. ANd then when they ask people to do the Wikipedia violation collection they just come up with lists of links which Akesgeroth posted on the arbcom request page and again below and obviously came from 8chan because I saw that shit last night.

They want someone who isn't one of them already (either an SPA or an account revived to use its age to become involved with editing the semiprotected articles and talk pages) to legitimize their opinions, and sadly, you've been doing this Masem. You are pushing and urging editors to make sure "neutrality" ensures that Gamergate's minority view points are given equal footing on this page by treating this issue as a debate that hasn't already come to its conclusion weeks ago. The majority view point is that Gamergate is a conservative backlash against social minorities (women and the LGBT community) daring to make alternatives to the AAA studio games that make billions of dollars and how the hardcore gamers don't like the games and thinktheysho uldn't be given any press because there's no challenging gameplay and they're just stories. It's why the movement has been co-opted by conservative voices that have done things completely antithetical to Gamergate's goals or who have never said anything about video games in the past but see Gamergate fighting feminism and saw an opening to get a new audience. They are legitimizing the movement despite not giving a shit about their ideals, backpedalling on things they said that completely went against the group in the past.

So people coming here can go on and on about the big bad Wikipedians, the Big Five, putting them down and trying to prevent them from skewing the article to their POV when policies and guidelines almost expressly forbid it. They can come praise Based Masem for paying attention to them and attempting to get the article balanced they way they want to. And they can completely ignore other editors who are already on their side unless they happen to become a shill or a sell out for pointing out the threads that they're making on /gg/ or r/KotakuInAction that are attempting to disrupt Wikipedia. This is not how we should allow the article to continue to be edited. The only complaints of lack of neutrality are coming from Gamergate movement members who don't like how they're being portrayed here, which is just reflecting the mainstream view points on the movement.

No matter how many times they compare the coverage of various historical figures and hate groups that don't include the word "evil" and say it is comparable to the word "misogyny" on this page or make references to white supremacist websites to try to discount the staff writers of websites they don't want to be used, they should not be allowed to inundate this page and its editors and keep it in stasis in a way that delegitimizes the complaints against them by having the NPOV tag plastered at the top of the article. The only reason other controversial topics don't encounter this issue as we have on Gamergate and related pages is because the other issues don't have a majority of people involved who are web savvy enough to make this much of an impact. We will never satisfy the Gamergate movement and the #NotYourShield or /gg/ or r/KotakuInAction in what they want for this page to cover and say about them. That does not mean it should be consistently tagged with {{NPOV}}. It is a Sisyphean effort to deal with Gamergate in any fashion. No matter how many concessions you can make with someone nor sanctions leveled against another, there is someone to replace them and make new arguments and accusations to deal with. It's exhausting to deal with this article, on Wikipedia, where you see the same shit repeated day in and day out by a brand new account who managed to get autoconfirmed, and off, when you get people sending you tweets constantly to taunt or harass or digging through your old internet stomping grounds to find evidence against you or your address to send you hundreds of dollars of furry fandom-made dildos. We need to end this now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Halfhat, you are not "finding violations of WP:SAY:" you are simply implementing your apparently flawed understanding of that section of the MOS to replace perfectly acceptable and neutral words with 'say.' WP:SAY does not mandate that we use absurdly repetitive language and never use any other word where we could use 'say' or 'said:' it prohibits us from using loaded terms like 'claimed' and 'explained.' "Argued" is also perfectly fine under that policy, because it doesn't make any suggestion as to the arguer's degree of correctness, and 'stated' is explicitly permitted by the guideline. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay my mistake stated is allowed, however "argued" and "noted" are common here and both less neutral (in opposite directions), there is also the odd other poor words like "explained". HalfHat 17:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Argued isn't mentioned, however there was a minidispute after I replaced various cases of "noted" with argued, the agreement seemed to be to avoid both. HalfHat 20:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe use "wrote" some more? Nothing wrong with "said" but it would be nice to mix it up a bit. — Strongjam (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's an example of multiple WP:Say violations I just fixed. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gamergate_controversy&diff=633266565&oldid=633266246 HalfHat 19:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think your changes are unnecessary and weaken the prose of an already weak article, but you'll notice that I'm not reverting you. This is not an issue worthy of retaining the Tag Of Shame on the article, though, because it's a relatively simple fix and one that nobody is bothering to dispute even if we don't all agree that it needs to happen. If you think the change needs to happen, it's on you to do it, but it doesn't make any sense to require the tag to remain because you're 'still finding' these words that you believe are WP:SAY violations. Find them and change them. If you haven't found any more to change, then the problem is fixed. If you have, why haven't you changed them yet? -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

An interesting example is Columbia Journalism Review which while it says "Yet many criticisms of press coverage by people who identify with Gamergate . . . have been debunked." http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/gamergate.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfhat (talk • contribs) 21:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC) sorry post this early what I was going to finish was that it still gave a roughly equal coverage of ethics and harassment. HalfHat 21:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Harvard Political Review

A rather neutral article on the GG situation. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Not read it yet but it sounds like a pretty high quality source that should definitely be used. HalfHat 16:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds more high quality then it is. It's written and published completely by students. — Strongjam (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Still sounds a lot better than Buzzfeed. But point taken. HalfHat 16:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Probably a topic for another section, but we could probably get rid of that last Buzzfeed article, it's cited in two places that already have three or more citations. — Strongjam (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this a student paper? Artw (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. All of HPR is written and published by undergraduates. — Strongjam (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, for some reason I thought that it was more "edited" than that (eg with a professor or the like with oversight), but it appears to be UGs to the top. Not that it necessarily bad, given these are UGs from Harvard, but yea, not really usuable. (I've seen several student papers that are more in proGG that we definitely can't use). --MASEM (t) 16:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

List of relevant sources concerning the ethics in gaming journalism perspective

As requested, being transferred here.

Akesgeroth (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You should review WP:RS! Most of the articles you've listed seem to be blogs, private websites, or tiny sites with no established history of fact-checking and reliability; and certainly random youtube videos are not good sources. Beyond that, the most reputable-looking sources in your list (the Forbes articles) are dismissive of the claims that this is about ethics in game journalism; I see nothing in those that contradicts the current state of the article, and nothing in the other sources that suggests that they would be reputable to rely on going forwards. --Aquillion (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS Artw (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

unless a valid reason for these sources are given, they violate WP:NOTFORUM (because this is a discussion about pro gamer gate sources. Not a discussion on where and why they should be used. Please lead the discussion into this). This talk page is not a place for throwing sources at us ,be bold instead Avono (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

News: The nature of the Internet is Male-dominated

The source used is http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/04/open-internet-closed-to-women, but for some reason, the Internet article do not mention this stated fact. Describing a communication network nature as being gender-dominated is not something I commonly see, even through some pop-culture do like to present the use of the phone-system to be female-dominated. Thankfully, that kind of statements are not presented as facts on Wikipedia, and very few sources regarding the telephone system mention it so it would clearly be a undue statement from a fringe view, and likely quite sexist. Belorn (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you posted this, I couldn't find a single reference to gamergate or even gamer with a search. Seems pretty unrelated. HalfHat 20:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The last sentence in the lead of this article: "The resulting culture war, tied with the anonymous and male-dominated nature of the Internet, led to the subsequent harassment and conflict.". I did not bring it to gamergate article, the gamergate article brought it to me. I just found it as news to me that the nature of the internet is Male-dominated. In a normal article, I would had removed it. Belorn (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure it was added as there were complaints that misogyny and harassment were internet problems not just GG problems. The wording is a bit awkward, it's supposed to reflect that internet communities, and technology spaces themselves are male dominated. Which is pretty non-controversial when you look at the numbers. — Strongjam (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

While I am sure the intention was good, it just sit there as reinforcement of stereotypes. 85% of all Americans uses the internet. Where I live, that number is 95% of the whole population, half which also have a facebook account, which I am pretty sure qualify as a internet community. I guess you could try to limit the scope of internet communities enough that you can identify a community which is just male, and then use that to "prove" that the internet is male, but why do this? The source itself do not even mention gamergate so it seem quite unnecessary for a article of this size to include such statements and then try to build a narrative around it. Belorn (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Article is pretty straight-forward an uncontroversial to me, but if you have a problem with it being used then WP:FIXIT. — Strongjam (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There are sources, and more to be added, that point out that the nature of the Internet is not so much male dominated by numbers but male-dominated in voices and behavior (eg the Mother Jones pieces uses the language of a male locker room); there is definitely sources (and perhaps we need more) that have tied how GG has handled this situation to how it is just an extension of how the Internet in general reacts to something. (There's more than enough sourcing on the gender nature of the Internet, but that likely should be added to Sociology of the Internet, which is only a start-class article.) --MASEM (t) 21:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The Mother Jones opinion piece is not encyclopedic in tone, and its conclusion is polemical. This is not the place to discuss the nature of the internet; this article is the place to discuss the nature of Gamergate. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The point is the nature of the Internet, pre-GG, is what laid the foundation of how GG behaves, according to some. It is important that GG is not the first case of online harassment against women or in general hostile to women eg [18], [19], [20], [21], for example. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Is the nature of the internet online harassment? I think I could make the same point about the nature of education to be about school yard bullying, using a much larger size of sources to prove that many people indeed do experience school yard bullying while going through education. It is a documented problem, sure, and a dedicated researcher in Sociology could likely write a long report about the history of harassment, where it is being practiced, and the consequences from it. However, is Wikipedia article about gamergate really a place for doing that? Belorn (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

In that othres have said that the male-dominated - or perhaps "female unfriendly" might be better language - Internet the habits have rubbed onto the those that are engaging in the harassing, seeing no issue with harming a woman's sanity and tossing away complains like "grow a spine". It is an attempt by people analyzing the situation to understand why harassment was a vehicle by some in the GG situation. As such, it is connected. --MASEM (t) 04:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Making minor edits in order to rant in the edit summary

Don't do that. Artw (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll do you think the current opening paragraph is suitable

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

#Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Straw_poll_-_update_lead is still active, making this redundant. If there is a specific issue with the lead you wish to address (and not NPOV as that's being discussed in multiple locations), please create a new section. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Please consider making the topic commendable, NPOV, and keeping it readable. I'm particularly concerned with the opening sentence which says it's concerned with misogyny and harassment with no mention of the more complex wider issues, which while prominent are still part of the controversy, articles such as Columbia Journalism Review give large portions of to the ethics angle despite not condoning it. HalfHat 22:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Vote Please say if you 'support the current opening' as of 22:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC) and explain why citing any sources and policies (quoting if possible) HalfHat

Stop making straw polls. Wikipedia is not operated like a democratic government. This website does not operate on votes, no matter what you may see at AFD or RFA.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes the current opening paragraph satisfied WP:NPOV and is adequate. With respect to the rest of your "straw poll" question, I have also stopped beating my wife. And Wikipedia, as Ryūlóng observes, does not promote votes, popularity contests, or canvassing. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• The last thing a contentious topic needs is yet another straw poll—Wikipedia does not operate on the basis of who can make the loudest noise. There has been plenty of discussion on the lead and all other aspects of the article, and there is no need to start another section merely to rehash previous opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

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

"This decision" in the lead

The second sentence of the third paragraph "This decision and others have been widely criticized..." doesn't follow from the first. What decision? I'd make an attempt at fixing it, but I'm not sure what it's trying to say. DPRoberts534 (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain the "decision" is to attack Gawker et al.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree 'decision' is the wrong word here. It's referring to the pressure on advertisers to drop support for sites that say unflattering things about gamergate: 'this move?' 'This campaign?' -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. DPRoberts534 (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate winding down

Focus should be given more to the decline of the pro-Gamergate narrative, as noted here; Has Gamergate Finally Burned Itself Out?. Take note of what they discuss, the matter a judge who jokingly said he she would vote against all male-oriented games at the Independent Games Festival. The judge resigned briefly in the wake of the Gamergate complaints, til the IGF actually examined the merit (or lack thereof) the complaints, and swiftly reinstated him her. The article, as well as many others, notes Sarkeesian's appearance on the Colbert Report, as well as the co-founder of Blizzard Entertainment saying "Over the past couple of months there’s been a small group of people who have been doing really awful things. They have been making some people’s lives miserable and they are tarnishing our reputation as gamers. It’s not right." A high-profile game industry person speaking out on this is rather notable. Tarc (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

But ethics!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I only read the first link because I don't have much time, but the Slate piece is a blog. Also, the judge was of the Independent Games Festival, instead of a real judiciary. starship.paint ~ regal 00:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no dice. The blog-esque sections of reliable sources are treated no differently, i.e. you don't get to do the "just a blog" dismissal.

Assuming they have the same editorial policies. HalfHat 14:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're referring to Mattie Brice (and I think you are), she's a her, not a him. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Derp, sorry...saw the name, assumed short for Matthew. Fixed. Tarc (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Winding down is the appropriate phrasing. Gamergate is not "dead" and will never be dead. It means too much to those who are involved in the movement (or consumer revolt, whatever) that they will continue to work on GG issues into the future. It's like a campaign, those who are marginally involved have now moved on already, there isn't really anything "newsworthy" that has happened recently so it's not in the mainstream media and gaming journals are, for sure, tired of discussing the topic. It will never go away completely but, barring any flash fires, activity will lessen in the coming weeks and months. Ideally, this will provide some much needed perspective that will help this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You people do realize that the media churns out yet another "GamerGate is Dead! Pls stop stealing our monies ;-;" every week or so? I'm so pissed off that you actually fall for this that I'm not even going to bother linking to the 20+ stupid "GamerGate is dead" shit. --DSA510 Pls No H8 05:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah one from weeks ago is actually in the references here. I've heard Dyson pulled their advertising recently which doesn't really fit with this, though I've not seen any RS report on it. HalfHat 08:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

They didn't even report on Mercedes Benz, only when they got back, and only one outlet, and even when Gawker denied they were advertising with them. Loganmac (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

tag, again

My removal of the tag was reverted by User:Mr. Random with the following edit summaries:

" A case has been made that this article needs a tone rewrite, if nothing else. Possible sources to fix this have been ignored"

"misrepresentation of sources and lack of non-anti-GG sources are two separate issues. The former, per Masem, is why the notice stays"

"per Masem and the ANI page. None of the three conditions for removal is currently true"

I'm sorry, I'm new to this mess, so maybe I'm missing something. But I've been on Wikipedia for a very long time and this to me looks like a classic case of certain editors fighting to keep a tag on the article as a badge of shame (as the ANI page says) because they they don't like what the article says. In particular they don't like that the article is based on reliable sources and reflects what reliable sources say.

Specifically:

1. an article "need(ing) a tone rewrite" is NOT a reason to keep the tag on the article. And frankly, that sounds like some weasel bullshit obfuscation. "Oh, the article is POV! Why is it POV? Well... it's the tone!". Come on, you got to do better than that. Keeping the tag requires that the tag is substantiated and it is explained precisely how the article violates Wikipedia policies. From what I can see (I skipped some of the wall-of-text-rants) this hasn't been done.
2. "Possible sources... have been ignored" - I'm sorry, that doesn't make sense. What the hell are "possible sources"? If there are some "possible sources" out there being ignored, and you feel that they shouldn't be ignored, then for goodness sake, include them, don't spuriously tag the article. "Possible sources have been ignored" is just NOT a reason to include a NPOV tag in an article. *At best* it's a testament to someone's laziness, at words, weaselly excuse making.
3. "Misrepresentation of sources" - Ok, this one is actually substantial. If true. But I'm not seeing where this is explained. Which sources are being misrepresented? Where? How? Be specific. Just asserting that sources are being misrepresented doesn't make it so. An assertion is not an argument. Let's see the list. If no such list is forthcoming, the tag goes.
4. "per Masem" - first, this isn't an argument, unless Masem is some kind of authority here, whose views have been widely accepted by the general community, or at least on this talk page. This isn't the case. In fact, if one looks at the discussion right above, it's pretty clear that User:Masem has a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy, and in particular of what "neutrality" means. "Neutrality" does not mean "for every negative statement we must include a positive statement". It does not mean "we cannot include negative statements". It does not mean "we cannot include opinions (from reliable sources)". This is being pointed out to them. The fact that they - and apparently couple of others - fail to get it is not a reason to include the tag. Not understanding Wikipedia policy is not a reason to include the tag.
5. "per ANI page" - I have no idea how this makes sense. The discussion at ANI does not support including the article at all.

Either specific, detailed explanation is made of how the article violates WP:NPOV - as required - or the tag goes. Soon. Volunteer Marek  05:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Your "per Masem" is a gross, incorrect statement of what I am trying to argument for. Impartiality, not balance. Huge difference. --MASEM (t) 05:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

As to the points:

• #1 (and same as #4) - Several editors including myself believe this suffers from impartial tone, which is a WP:NPOV consideration. The first sentence is the primary point where this absolutely violated, as the harassment is a consequence of the controversy, but not the cause/reason (which, actually, is unknown or unclear). The rest are issues on phrasing and ordering that, presently, ridicule any point given by the GG side; while technically in line with policy as to not intend to give it the voice of WP at any single phrase, as a whole it is a problem. There's small bits of reordering that can be done to improve the language without changing the content or the ratio of sources. This also applies to the excessive use of antiGG pull quotes in full to keep hammering that the harassment and misogyny is bad, but without contributing to the factual substance of the article. It is not like the article has to be trashed, 95% of the content is good, but there just needs some rewrite, quote trimming, and reorganization to speak in a more impartial voice.
• #2 and #3 are non-starters; I prefer if we could even get away from weaker RSs to source most of this to high quality ones, but the sources that are claimed to be ignored or mis-represented are very weak or not even reliable to start. So yes, that's not an argument. #5 As the time I write this, the ANI discussion has no obvious consensus either way so that's also a non-starter. --MASEM (t) 06:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

As noted many times, you are not allowed to keep the tag in place as a warning to readers or a shame badge. Tag the article, make your concerns known on the talk page, and discussion ensues. You and your friends have failed to achieve consensus for your concerns, thus your proposal FAILS. Thirty-five days is more than a generous amount of time to grant for this sort of thing, and as people keep ignoring this, I'll use shouty-bold caps: REMOVAL OF THE TAG DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL DISCUSSION IS HALTED, it just means there is nothing dire that necessitates the solicitation of outside opinion. Moveon was initially created to prod Republicans to drop the Monica Lewinsky stick and...wait for it...move on. Tag proponents need something similar. Tarc (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that people have refused to partipate in consensus developing debates (the mediation request, and the two prior ArbCom ) on the basis of SPAs being the issue and not addressing concerns of established editors, there is no way to say that we can talk about "failure to get consensus". --MASEM (t) 14:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could drop all the "SPA" stuff, and judge arguments, not backgrounds. starship.paint ~ regal 14:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

More Obvious Bias

Under "Political Views" or whatever (the absolute shit quality of it makes me forget section titles like that), there is only one sentence regarding the charities. It should be expanded on. --DSA510 Pls No H8 05:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to be WP:BOLD and expand it based on reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that even the current sentence is too much. One donation made by a few random people who use the hashtag is not, itself, a political view; the editors who want it included in the article seem to be trying to make the argument that this has implications for the political views of Gamergate as a whole (arguing, in other words, that because certain people who also use the GamerGate hashtag have donated money to a particular business, this means that we can conclude things about Gamergate as a whole), but that argument is WP:OR -- covering that in such a context requires reliable sources not just stating that it happened, but that it is significant. We don't note, for example, every political or personal donation made by other individuals or groups -- they're only worth covering once a reliable source has made an issue of them in some way. Otherwise, mentioning donations in an article to imply things like "he can't always be a bad person, he donated money to XYZ" or "he is clearly affiliated with this political movement, he donated money to them!" is original research, because it's an editor trying to force readers to draw specific conclusions rather than relying on reliable sources for interpretation. This is particularly true for Gamergate (which is diffuse and therefore hard to characterize) and for, if I recall the story correctly, these particular donations, which were made to someone who had constantly had a dispute with one of Gamergate's primary targets. Some editors might want to say that the donations show the milk of human kindness, or that it was just another form of harassment, or that it was purely a cynical ploy to deflect criticism; but any of these statements would have to be cited to a reliable source indicating the relevance of the event in that context. Without such a source, again, my feeling is that they can't be included because we have no citations for how, exactly, they're relevant to the discussion. Remember that the article is already massively-long -- it cannot hope to cover every particular thing that anyone claiming to be a part of Gamergate has done over the past few months. So any such inclusion needs sources indicating not just that they happened, but that it is relevant to the overarching coverage of the controversy. --Aquillion (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Willhesucceed (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thousands of pounds have been donated in the name of GG, so it's more than a few, at the very most though I think it should probably a short paragraph. Preferably shorter, it could probably be better placed in another section, I think it used to be in TFYC section. HalfHat 11:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that there are tens of thousands using the gamergate hashtag, and one of the sources indicating that a single donor gave several thousand dollars, thats much less than a pound a person. they really put their money where their mouth is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Those sources aren't useful, because they only state, effectively, 'some people who say they identify with GamerGate have given some money to other people'. They don't actually assert relevance, and therefore can't be given any particular weight over the thousands of other things that have happened over the course of this controversy. Conversely, there are countless reliable sources asserting in detail that harassment is core to what Gamergate is; that's the sort of sources that are needed to give this more than a sentence of attention at best. "A few people using the GG tag did something, which we will drop here without context for users to draw their own conclusion" is not encyclopedic writing; "here are a large number of reliable sources discussing what Gamergate is and what its defining elements are" is encyclopedic writing. This is especially true because the article is far too long and therefore cannot possibly cover every single operation, post, or action that people claim to have accomplished in Gamergate's name -- we need to focus on overarching core coverage produced by reliable sources, and avoid trying to cobble together our own original-research narratives out of disparate events like the donations referenced above. Obviously some editors here feel strongly that these (comparatively tiny) thousands of pounds of donations offer some deep insight into Gamergate, or are representative of it or otherwise would improve our article if we gave it more coverage; but I don't think that there's reliable sources backing that assertion up, so I think it's fair to dismiss it as generally not-very-relevant. --Aquillion (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The "charity work" of a particular person or persons is not relevant to the topic of the article. Please keep in mind that this article is not about Gamergaters themselves, nor about their beliefs or their movement or whatever one wishes to call it. It is about the controversy generated by people who harassed (and continue to do so) Quinn, Wu, and others under the #Gamergate hashtag. Tarc (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Since they donated under the hashtag, more clearly than many of the threats, that argument would apply just as much to the harassment. It also did garner a decent ammount of attention, with accusations of weaponizing charity. HalfHat 13:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, irrelevant. This is not an article about Gamergaters, this is an article about Gamergater-fueled controversy, time to accept that and move on. Tarc (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This just looks like POV pushing. It is part of a controversy, there were accusations of weaponizing charity. HalfHat 13:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

My admittedly-brief search doesn't find a single reliable source which even mentions the phrase "weaponizing charity." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought it had, maybe it hadn't, it was hot topic for a bit. I'll have a look, but I don't think that phrase itself was used. HalfHat 16:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

A random thought

Just considering some past discussions, I'm wondering if there are points that we all might be speaking past, on the core nature of what this article is, which in turn might reflect how to write this to address issues.

Imaging if there was no harassment at all involved in this: Gjoni posted his blog, the people that are GG accussed Quinn, and then went on to find other ethics concerns and did their advertiser campaigns. At the core, this is the controversy from the side of the GG, this is what their movement is (as they claim, as we can cite). In considering it as a controvery, it has the two sides and all normal facets one would expect: here is what one side that wants to see change wants (proGG) and here's the other side (gaming journalists and indie devs, or more specifically, those that push political views in games). I don't know if we'd have an article on it if it was just this, but I'm just setting up.

But what did happen is the addition of harassment and the like. Consider that this is another controversy separate from the above. This is the mainstream press criticizing the use of harassment that appears misogynic by those that claim they are part of the other controversy.

What the problem may have been is that by calling this as the "Gamergate controversy" is potentially misleading because it relates to the first one (the gamers vs gaming press), while another way the press have used it to describe there side. So we are starting for all readers (pro and antiGG alike) from a point that could be taken either way by title only.

There is no question that the bulk of sourcing is on the second controversy, the mainstream press vs the proGG side, because of the harassment. As such, I wonder if consider calling this "Gamergate movement controversy" to accurately reflect that this is primarily about the issues the harassment has called around the movement, more than anything else. What that would mean would be a bit of reorganization to frst explain what the GG movement is, their goals, and the critical responses to that are (probably a whole 4-5 paragraphs at most, we have most of the material already) and then going into the actual line of the events that are part of this larger controversy, which at the end of the day is primarily going to be the predominate mainstream critical assessment of the GG tactics and the bulk of the rest of the article. Calling it by the "Gamergate movement controversy" makes it 100% clear we're not covering the movement in detail but the issues that those using the "GG" banner have caused. Alternately, we could keep this as "Gamergate controversy" and make sure in the first sentence of the lead, to explain that the article is going to about the second controversy, and not the movement. Either way, I can see a path that keeps nearly all sources but makes it clear that WP's article is not about the movement but the actions they caused. I'm not 100% on this approach, but it was something that struck me when reading some of the replies overnight. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

per the AFD, this article is about the harassment. Gamers and forum trolls being upset about something is not itself notable because that is the usual state for those people. Artw (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Which is what I'm saying, which might make this easier to write to isolate the part about the movement's aspects and "their" controversy into a single section per FRINGE, and then go on about the harassment. The approach would make it clear that outside of that section, the rest is about the harassment events and media's reaction to it. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, I'll get back to you on this. HalfHat 16:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There isn't any "movement". That's a figment of people's imagination. RGloucester — ☎ 17:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

A quick Google search suggests otherwise. I agree with Masem. Reframing the discussion could be a helpful first step in addressing the structural problems of this article. Pollinosisss (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are reliable (high quality) RS that recognize that there is a movement, and if we follow that and treat that as a small FRINGE subsection where all their "ethics" items are described and leave the rest of the article about the harassment that has done in the name of the GG movement, then we can clear up a lot of the issues here. But we have to recognize that the press does recognize a movement. The problem right now is trying to group the concerns of the movement and the concerns of the press about harassment in the same subsections which the collision is causing much of the non-impartial language. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There are also high quality sources that say it is not really a movement, just a unorganized rabble under a hashtag, and purposefully so , so that there is no culpability for the harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

...which we can add to the larger part of the article that show the press questions if this really is a movement without leadership, or even using the ethics as a front for harassment. (It would be improper to call the GG a movement in the FRINGE area and then not include these complaints elsewhere). --MASEM (t) 20:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Why would we privilege the sources that see GG as a "movement" over those that say its just a ravaging horde via implementing a WP:STRUCTUREal bias? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, you are privileging the "some" sources that give credence to a "movement" that other equally reliable sources say is not a "movement" at all but merely a gaggle of hashtaggers whinging about this and that and the other thing and using it as cover for harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

We have high quality sources that are critical of GG, with some that acknowledge GG as a movement before speaking ill of it, and some that doubt or denounce that from the start. As such, two viewpoints with about the same weight and balance means we should present both points, and by presenting the movement as a FRINGE topic of the main controversy instead of trying to mix it into it will simplify the article's approach by making it clear it is about the harassment issues. --MASEM (t) 22:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

We have just as many high quality sources that dispute any claims that gamergate is an actual "movement". Privileging the structure of the article as if the "but ethics 'movement'" is the valid perspective is not WP:STRUCTURE appropriate and certainly not something we will do to try "appease" ranting tolls and satisfy their desire for attention and acknowledgment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The point of this approach is not to appease the proGG, but to be 100% clear that this article's main topic is the harasment of the actions under the GG movement and there is no NPOV issues in how we cover the harassment given the predominate sourcing in the press. In the current version of this article, by mixing the ethics concerns with the harassment, there are difficult NPOV/impartial issues that are entangled. Separate out and isolate the brief amount of ethics aspects we already have, and then there's a clear delination, and it will be much clearer that once we start getting into the harassment aspects, there is zero way we can give the GG aspects any positive aspects there given the overwhelming negative attention they have in the press when it comes to the harassments. This is an approach supported by NPOV and required by FRINGE, (given that the movement is a fringe view, to give it the weight that sources give little coverage of). --MASEM (t) 06:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It might be noted here that there are many controversies surrounding Gamergate, but Gamergate itself is not a controversy. The current title is misleading. Pollinosisss (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That's why thinking "Gamergate movement controversy" as a title might be better, as 1) it's not about the movement, and what would be about the movement would be its a short section to give just the only backgrround we can source) - as such, at least I think, that those proGGs that are asking about the POV of this article but recognize the issues with not being reported in reliable sources will recognize we can't do any more for them in coverage and thus cannot complain of POV of the article, and 2) separate out the two very different issues that are difficult to write in the same logical thought. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I think people are having trouble with the English language. The suffix -gate is attached to words to indicate a scandal or controversy. The addition of "controversy" is thus unnecessary, and only done to disambiguate from the type of ant. "Gamergate movement" doesn't make any sense. It means "Gamer scandal movement" or "Gamer controversy movement", which is a nonsense phrase. There is no "Gamer scandal movement". There is a scandal about harassment and misogyny in the video gaming sphere, hence "Gamer" and "-gate". This meaning trumped the original reference to the so-called "corruption" involving a one Ms Quinn. The suffix "-gate" indicates that scandal. Perhaps a so-called "movement" has arisen amidst the scandal, but that doesn't change the fact that the scandal itself is not about any kind of amorphous movement, but about the contemptible behaviour of certain people. RGloucester — ☎ 18:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree generally, but would caution against being so prescriptive. I don't think there's need to worry about the lexical precision of "Gamergate" (as movement or controversy) since that's basically the common term and what we're stuck with. However I don't object to anything else in the above. Protonk (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

What I've recognized when I came to this idea is that the people on the proGG side think that "Gamergate" is about them, and thus the fact we bury their ethics concerns (work with me on this) is why they come to this article to want change. The press treat "Gamergate" as the larger harassment issue. There's clearly a communication issue here that we really have two different things happening that are kludgy when trying to treat it as one. We don't necessary have to change the title to separate it, but the lead is going to have to be super clear. If we kept it as "Gamergate controversy", then the lead would likely need to come out as : "An ongoing controversy involving the actions of supporters of the hashtag #Gamergate broke out in the video game industry in August 2014. The #Gamergate supporters have claimed they seek to challenge issues of ethics in journalism within the video game industry. Simultaneous to this was a prolonged series of harassment and threats against several video game industry figures, primarily female, using the #gamergate hashtag. The harassment was condemned widely by international media, and condemned the actions as sexist and misogynistic, and questioned the true intent of the #gamergate movement." (I running that off the top of my head, so it absolutely needs wordsmithing) But putting it in that tone makes it 100% clear, this is going to be about how the press saw GG, and not about the GG movement. There would be no way that the POV (of trying to make this proGG) could be challenged in that manner. We'll have the small section on describing the GG movement with only criticism of their ethics complaints, but we'll get to lack of organization, the "but ethics!" aspects and the like later in the larger part of the article. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

So what you really wanted to do was muck about with the lede? Nope. Artw (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No, because there would be a more significant revision to the overall structure; the point of redoing the lead (and that's certainly not a perfect rewrite) is to make it 100% clear that the article is about the controversy around the harassment issues, and not about the proGG's controversy with the gaming press, so that if the proGG side continue to say "but this is baised!" we can say that their issues are the clear FRINGE point to the larger harassment ones, and dismiss those concerns by nature of the structure. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

On this page, there is no "proGG" or "antiGG". There are only Wikipedia editors, writing in the encyclopaedic voice. There is no "controversy with the gaming press" according to reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 21:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"Media: "We are ethical n' stuff XD"[1] Source: Said Media." --DSA510 Pls No H8 23:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It is silly to claim there are no sources to ascribe what the proGG wants, even if, as some sources believe, this is only pretense for something else - we have what the proGG has claimed to be already sourced in the article. We don't have to necessarily believe that the proGG's claims are true (the press by and large doesn't) but by making it a separate discussion as a small FRINGE section, we can easily separate out arguments that right now are mixed together and make it difficult to undue the two issues. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no controversy about "but ethics"- other than the fact that those claiming it as an issue apparently cannot identify actual "ethics issues" when it hits them on the head. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

If a side of an issue says they have a problem with X, and that source is claimed by a strong RS, then we can say that in the article; in this case, we have all the sources that make the necessary claims of the GG's issues with the press already in the article and would not have to scramble around for re. GG supporters say they have an issue with the gaming press (we can source that), and they have a few things like conflicts of interest (sourced) and "objective reviews" (sourced). However, everyone recognizes these as FRINGE view, so we have many more sources that counter the COI and the "objectives review" points, and we have numerous criticism about how the GG side has managed itself, it's lack of message or workable mess, and of course, the whole harassment side. This proposal is just to call out the little we can source about the GG movement in a small section as FRINGE to the main topic of the harassment which is what this article should be clearly about; this is avoid all the mingling of issues that give it the appearance of POV.

Let's consider this from the opposite side; hypothetically, consider if all the GG complaints about ethics were removed from this article, (excluding the press's "but ethics!" commentary and the like); what is left is really what this article needs to be about, and written to that point. However, as a note in the overall history, we should, per FRINGE, have a short section to explain where GG came about and their fringe viewpoint, and why it is a fringe viewpoint. Because we've made this hypothetical article clearly about the harassment, we have no "responsibility" to do any additional work to speak positively towards GG (until more sourcing to give them that comes about), as per NPOV. Meaning that the claims this is an NPOV article coming from SPAs can be nullified because the article is not about the GG movement itself, but about the harassment done in the name of the GG movement. It's a way to move forward on this article that I think would satisfy my issues with it. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No "ethics issues"? Our very own article would disagree "Hill instead wrote that AAA games publishers "coopted [games journalism] as a marketing arm" and said that many games journalists agree that those publishers hold too much power over the media." It is widely established that ethics issues exist within gaming journalism, and that has been a running joke since before Nintendo reviewed their own games in Nintendo Power. What people are arguing over is whether or not GGers are using the legitimate issues of game journalism ethics as a smokescreen for misogyny, which the overwhelming media supports, and not whether or not legitimate issues of game journalism ethics exist which the overwhelming media also supports.AioftheStorm (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly right. There is no "controversy over ethnics issues", because those issues are acknowledged universally. The controversy surrounds how these people used that widely-acknowledged problem as a front to spew hate. RGloucester — ☎ 00:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The concern that some claim to have with journalism ethics is a minor aspect of Gamergate. It is given adequate coverage in proportion to its minority point-of-view. Tarc (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I'm suggesting that we group all the existing parts that focus on the ethics arguments into a small section to isolate that from the larger, majority topic, and make it clear we are only giving the appropriate WEIGHTed coverage to the GG side, and then get into the larger criticism of their methods/approach. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You're willfully misquoting Hill's point, which is that Gamergate isn't talking about AAA game publishers at all, and therefore they cannot claim those legitimate issues as an issue of journalism ethics that they're discussing. Yes, there are issues of ethics in video games journalism. No, Gamergate is not doing anything meaningful to discuss or address them. Instead, they're talking about indie game developers' sex lives, sending death threats to a cultural critic and attacking an academic group for being taken over by "feminists" — none of those things have the least shred of connection to journalism ethics. The movement can't claim to be about something it demonstrably has no interest in. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Culling substandard sources

This is a controversial article which deals with very specific WP:BLP topics, but is plagued with substandard sourcing. There is really no need to have 153 sources detailing the minutia of the controversy. I suggest removing all the sources labeled as op-eds, and all of the gaming press sources. That would leave mainstream outlets like the BBC, public radio, PBS, The New Yorker, Slate, The New York Times, The Independent, The Boston Globe, Le Monde, Salon, CNN, Mother Jones, The Guardian, Wired, Time, LA Times etc, so long as the sources were not to their editorial page. This would mean removing sources like Venture Beat, Ars Technica, IGN, Polygon, The Daily Dot, Kotaku, PC Magazine, The Verge, Gamespot, Gameindustry.biz, Re/code, Eurogamer, etc...

The question of the RfC: Shall we limit the sourcing of this article to mainstream secondary sources, removing all niche game journalism sources, niche tech journalism sources, opinion/editorials columns, and personal blogs?

We just don't need to use niche publications to create an article for this topic. aprock (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

discussion

• There's a case to be made for some of the sources you've suggested dropping, but it might be a valuable exercise to cull the sourcing in general. There are all ready too many footnotes to marginal or situationally useful references. Protonk (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• There will be a few "substandard" sources I think we need to keep, such as Tolito's Kotaku rebuttal to the initial Quinn charge. But I do think that a few step of seeing what claims made by substandard sources can be moved to a good RS should be done first, and then see what the next step (eg how many statements only sourcable to substandard ones are left). --MASEM (t) 19:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sources like that are reasonable to keep if they are referred to in the mainstream press. Thus if his rebuttal is discussed, in say the Wall Street Journal, the primary source can be included. aprock (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's reasonable. But I think that determination should come after we do, wherever possible, replacement of weak RS to strong RS that support the same fact (eg what should be non-issue as that's just general improvement) What's left will then have to take a more cautious approach. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• the request is too broad. as a purely cultural event, opinions/analysis/commentary are necessary to understand the controversy's place and impact in culture. removing the items that place it in context is inimical to a good article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No one is suggesting removing analysis and commentary of the event. In fact, per WP:PSTS we rely on secondary sources to perform topic synthesis. However, per WP:RSOPINION, opinion pieces are generally not reliable sources for much beyond what the author thinks. If a mainstream source indicates that the editorial is of particular interest, then including it might be reasonable. Including it simply because it exists, is contrary to WP:DUE. aprock (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you reading a different proposal than I am? Shall we limit the sourcing of this article to mainstream secondary sources, removing all ... opinion/editorials columns, and personal blogs? yes, there is not only the suggestion but actual statement we remove from consideration some of the prime locations to derive high quality , in-depth opinion/commentary/analysis to be left with soundbites culled from "news" articles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that your definition of "high quality" is considerably different that that of the mainstream. Which "high quality" source would this proposal affect? aprock (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"high quality" relative to the sources available for an issue that is 3 months old. When the academic reviews come in, then the editorials are likely to be the second tier of quality. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Eliminating tech sources for an article about a technocultural controversy seems arbitrary or WP:POINTY. In some cases, though perhaps not in all, the technical press will offer expertise or detail not available to more general sources. Often, requests for source purges of this nature are really seeking to eliminate sourcing for critical sections of an article, which can then be removed, or preparing for a fresh visit to AfD. Neither is likely to be effective here. Moreover, if all this pruning will be done while the article remains capped with an NPOV template, we’ll continually be wrangling over whether each change is a further attempt to deskew the article. I do not see this as a productive path forward. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "pointy". If the tech sources are high quality mainstream sources they are probably reasonable. Which tech sources do you think are particularly high quality mainstream sources? aprock (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• This seems like a good broad principle and an absolutely terrible hard and fast rule. Oppose. Artw (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Seems incredibly overbroad to me to suggest that we can't use well-known tech/gaming journalism sources, which are those which have covered this matter most extensively. The Verge and Polygon in particular are run by noted journalists with a pretty significant history of quality work. Also, if we remove all of the sources you suggest, we will be left with far fewer "pro-GamerGate" voices — no Erik Kain, no APGNation, no MetalEater, no CinemaBlend, no Cathy Young, no Christina Hoff Sommers, etc. The ramifications of the fact that the only pro-GamerGate sources are of such marginal quality is an exercise left for the reader. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Which of the tech/gaming sources are particularly "well-known"? aprock (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, as I said, The Verge for one. As per its Alexa rank (426), it receives more traffic than Slate (611), Wired (623), Salon (1,088) or Mother Jones (3,700), just to name a few of those you named. Its staff consists of well-known tech journalists including Nilay Patel and its reporting is widely cited and commented upon beyond its site. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not at all clear that Alexa traffic is a good barometer of mainstream. The Verge is just barely three years old. I personally don't have any issue with the site, and know nothing about it's editorial practices. Is there any reporting there that is crucial to the article, and which can't be sourced to other mainstream sources? If so, it may be reasonable to use it, but it's probably not a big loss if it's not used. I could be wrong though. aprock (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, then what is a good barometer of mainstream other than just arguing by assertion that tech sites can't be mainstream? And why would Wired be mainstream and The Verge not? More people read The Verge than read Wired, at least based upon available traffic stats. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question, but again I don't think website traffic is the way to answer it. There may be some insight at mainstream media if you're curious to investigate further. aprock (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not up to me to answer it — you're the one making the claim that Wired is "mainstream" and The Verge is not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. I don't really care one way or another about The Verge. If it is generally considered a high quality mainstream source, then it should be included.aprock (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, that's all I needed to hear. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Seems a bit too sweeping to be practical, but it's hard to say sight unseen. Could a version be worked on as a subpage here, to see what the article would look like if such sources were pruned? Tarc (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support: as nominator. The quality of sources in the article is extremely low. Erring on the side of higher quality sources is a much better course to tack. aprock (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: It's a cultural issue surrounding games, I'm pretty sure game and tech sites are relevant --Frybread (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support: Kotaku is unbiased.[1] Source 1: Kotaku. --DSA510 Pls No H8 23:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and if you're going to whine that Gawker is a bastion of gold journalism, [22]. Just a few months after the "Fappening", they do a hard 180, and use (semi)nude pics for traffic. Don't bother reporting it, I have a local copy. --DSA510 Pls No H8 00:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose until nominator describes a meaningful process for defining which sources are "mainstream" that amounts to more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to suggest that WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:DUE be our guides. aprock (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Then you agree that The Verge is a perfectly-acceptable reliable source for this article and not "substandard" in any way? I don't object to looking at replacing The Daily Dot, CinemaBlend, etc. where possible, but The Verge is a pretty vital source which has extensively covered this issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree or disagree with respect to The Verge. It's up to the community to determine that this is a high quality mainstream source. It's not my call. Personally, I have no real experience with it, and have no clue how often it is used by other media. aprock (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a bad idea. Mainstream sources are being incredibly lazy with regard to this topic. It would further exacerbate the problems the article's having. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support, to some extent - I don't think it should be strictly limited to "mainstream only" as some of the industry-specific sources may give insight into the greater "chilling effects" on the industry. "Mainstream" will also ultimately be an arbitrary criteria. I'm not sure I agree with the assessment of substandard v standard - is it ultimately saying that if something is mentioned in a smaller source instead of mainstream sources, it is less reliable? I guess I tend to agree with that. But - if something is mentioned in mainstream and lesser-known both, and both are cited here, I definitely agree that the lesser-known can be culled, especially in a long article like this one (as Masem says below). And if there are details used in this article that are only cited in one (or maybe two) niche sources but not in the major press coverage, those should probably be reconsidered for inclusion. Either way I will be watching this with interest, as a related article I've been keeping an eye on uses almost exclusively what aprock describes here as "substandard sources," but that is a much more industry-specific article, while comparatively this issue has broken out into a higher level of media awareness so there are more sources to choose from. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 23:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Partial step: Replace low quality with high quality sources supporting same point

This is basically what I describe above, but to repeat, and highlight , I do suggest that a partial step that should not be as much of an issue is to replace any weak RS that is not tied to a quote or specific opinion with an high quality RS that can source the same point, if one does exist. If there doesn't exist a strong RS replacement, leave it for the time being. After we do that, we should be able to make a better judgement of what the quality of sourcing looks like if we need a further step. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

What are these weaker sources that you suggest be replaced?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The same list given above. But again, to be clear, this is only if a better quality RS can source the exact same point; there's definitely points where the writing in the finer details would require a specific source to be used and that couldn't be changed out. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. Tarc (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems like an easier first pass to take. aprock (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. No objection here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Specifically: IGN, The Daily Dot, PC Magazine, Gamespot and Gameindustry.biz can go. Ars Technica and Kotaku should stay. The former because they are generally reliable (and widely relied upon in tech articles) and the latter because it is unavoidable. Protonk (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I would add TechCrunch and CinemaBlend to the list of those we can look to replace. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Reliability must always be evaluated on a case-by-case matter. As someone who works in IT, I can say that the mainstream can sometimes be a poor source about technical topics, as it may be written by journalists who don't understand the topics they are writing about. Sources who specialize in a topic can often provide better coverage since it is what they specialize in. If we eliminate the technical press from technology-related articles, what's next? Should we stop citing astronomy sources in articles about astronomy? This is a bad idea. Each source must be judge individually, not by sweeping assertions. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I was not aware that there were any technical aspects of this controversy. As best I can tell, you are arguing to use primary sources above secondary sources. Given the degree of misuse that primary sources can cause, it's pretty clear that secondary sources should be used for the greatest part. To the extent that using primary sources makes sense, that should be determined by the secondary sources. aprock (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There may not be technical aspects to the controversy, but the gaming industry and community can be abstruse to those not part of it. The topic's not going to be served by handing it over exclusively to mainstream sources. Willhesucceed (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense given the suggestion. If we have a point sourced to , say, ArsTech, and the same point can be sourced to NYTimes, we should use the better quality source. On the other hand, if ArsTech goes into some detail on a technical point we have, and the NYtimes touches but glosses over the details, we should keep the ArsTech in this first partial step. The only suggestions I'm saying is when the 1-to-1 replacement is obvious. --MASEM (t) 06:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

What Is Gamergate? What Is Gamergate Controversy?

After some reading and analysis, it occurs to me that part of the problem with this article is (as mentioned above) that Gamergate has multiple meanings. It is said that the Gamergate controversy is a controversy about the video game culture, involving misogyny, harassment, and sometimes even threats, and that is true, but there are really two controversies masquerading as one, because one side in each of the two controversies uses the hashtag #Gamergate. The first controversy (the misogyny and harassment) is well-documented. The second controversy, which is not really related, is about journalistic ethics. This controversy is not as well documented as the first, and consists largely of tweets and other posts by individuals. That is, there is no direct relationship between those who defend the traditional video game culture against claims of misogyny and harassment, and those who argue that there are issues about journalistic ethics. On the one hand, reliable sources give much more weight to the harassment controversy than to the ethics controversy, and to give the two equal weight would be false balance. On the other hand, reliable sources do document that there is a population of gamers using the Gamergate hashtag who argue that there is an issue of journalistic ethics, and so that issue cannot be ignored.

The complication is that there are two controversies, one of which is mainstream and one of which is largely fringe, with the same name. It is as if the same word referred to both astronomy and astrology, both of which must be described, and we couldn't disambiguate them.

Is there any way that we can describe the two controversies, one of which is taken by mainstream reliable sources to be a real problem, and one of which appears to be that of a population of individual posters, while preserving Wikipedia policies? (Can this issue, of how to describe two controversies that are not even very related except for their name, even be discussed seriously with the current high volume of repeating the same arguments?) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This is what I'm trying to suggest at #A random thought above. The controversy over ethics (prior to applying the "but ethics!" criticism) can be delegated to one small 3-4 paragraph section of this article as covered as a FRINGE topic, and then keep the rest of the topic focused on the harassment aspect that is the more common application of the controversy. --MASEM (t) 23:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

To counter Red Pen's assertion of it 'not being a movement'. All of these articles cite it as a movement in some way: [23], [24], [25] (Yes, even Gawker), [26] (Erik Kain), [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] Please do tell me all about how 'RS don't treat it as a movement, it's a hashtag'. Tutelary (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The "movement" is not notable; the harassment that has been done under the guide of a movement is. Focusing the section title on the hashtag and not the non-notable movement is appropriate. Tarc (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Elaborate on how you are able to do such without the support of RS. I've just listed about 11 sources each describing it as a movement. Where is your citations? Tutelary (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I would envision the section to be called "Gamergate hashtag/movement", because regardless of what RS say about the nature of the movement, there exists a concept of a "gamergate movement" - whether it really exists as a group, a movement, or a front for something else is what can be described more in the text. But "Gamergame movement" is definitely a searchable term by WP's standards. --MASEM (t) 06:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

lets just take a look at the sources that you posted that use the term that are on the more reliable end of the RS scale

• "some in the industry say it's a much broader movement," at best its couching it as an opinion held by a particular set of people "some in the industry say", but even that couched usage is surrounded by "many observers say they think Gamergate is all about attacking women in the video game industry" and " bullying by anonymous trolls" - the article then goes on to quote a number of developers essentially saying "you shouldnt consider the stuff that goes on under gamergate to be what gamergate is about" - not really a strong endorsement the definition of a "movement"
• "the freewheeling catastrophe/social movement/misdirected lynchmob " kind of speaks for itself in how much of an "endorsement" it is for calling it a "movement"
• The Slate article uses the term quite a bit, but also states Gamergate’s own members can’t stop their movement, since there’s no central authority "There are no less than 16 factions actively involved ... each with their own particular agendas and resentments" essentially equal evidence that it is not a "movement", simply the use of a term for simplicities sake.
• Vox uses the term "There's also a substantial, vocal movement that believes" but it also says "#GamerGate has come to mean about 500 different things to thousands of different people." and "What do the #GamerGaters ultimately want? This is what isn't as clear, and it really differs based on which #GamerGate supporter you talk to. " That is not a "movement"
• If you are going to claim "movement" you would need to use it in context " a shadowy and threatening gaming movement called GamerGate"

Thats not even looking at the sources that explicitly state "its not really a movement"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Article about Gamergate and the Digital Games Research Association

Would this be suitable for new section under "GamerGate movement'?

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/11/11/gamergate-supporters-attack-digital-games-research-association

The above also has quotes from DIGRA's president.

How would you gauge the reliability of this source?

https://www.insidehighered.com/content/about-us

https://www.insidehighered.com/about_us/who Sookenon (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Inside Higher Ed's a pretty good source, and this is a pretty good article to discuss how loopy GamerGate's conspiracy-theory claims are. I think there are some people within Gamergate who are honestly interested in gaming journalism, but among the people who are really suspicious of DiGRA, there is a large group that are very anti-feminist. Some of them are probably misogynist. They’re afraid that for some reason feminists are going to come in and change their game. ... I don’t know that I can blame them, but they have no real knowledge of how academia works, how research works, how things get published, how colleagues in academia relate to each other, know each other and cite each other. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I was adding the start of that section before this was added, but yeah. There's one GGer quote in there that believe spoke for itself. Also, unrelated to this immediately, but one additional aspect is that this article says we're going to have journal articles coming down the pipes which (assuming peer-reviewed) are going to be good sources. --MASEM (t) 00:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where you get the stuff about journal articles being worked on, but at any rate I am not sure why this one source is enough to justify a lengthy section. This may indeed warrant a sentence or two since it pertains to the "Gamers Are Dead" article, but I think what is presently included is excessive. Certainly, calling the criticism "anti-feminist" in the heading on the basis of what the DiGRA president says is not exactly appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it's based on what the movement itself says, and the fact that a self-described anti-feminist video blogger is leading the charge. As the movement evolves, some Gamergate supporters have pledged to scrutinize research produced by DiGRA’s members for proof that the association has been taken over by feminists. ... "I’d like to show you how the Digital Games Research Association became co-opted by feminists to become a think tank by which gender ideologues can disseminate their ideology to the gaming press and ultimately to gamers." That's, by definition, anti-feminist. You can't be explicitly opposing a group because they're "feminists" and then complain when you're described as anti-feminist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And as I've been tracking the GG threads, DiGRA was the next major campaign for the last month-ism similar to the previous Operations (it even has an internal name but I can't recall it ATM and not given in that source). --MASEM (t) 02:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

On further articles: At least one paper written about Gamergate is already undergoing the peer review process, Consalvo said. Once the controversy dies down, she said, she expects many more will follow.. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Some Gaters have given this a name: DiggingDiGRA. This name isn't cited by any reliable sources that I've seen, though.

It's interesting to see what happens when specialist press reports on this stuff. There will be more as Gaters seek to reconcile their core dogma with the real world. In time it could become a significant part of our coverage. I can only imagine the papers this will fuel, as studying gamer culture is well within their academic scope. --TS 05:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Tooooooo long

Whoever tagged this, "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably", was absolutely right. I offer a barnstar for the first editor who in a non-vandalistic way manages to cut this article down to 80k. [Psst: I understand you want to stick everything in here, but the result is that no one can read it.] Drmies (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I will take up this challenge --Guerillero | My Talk 04:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies:The current size is 61K would a size of 50ish K be good? --Guerillero | My Talk 04:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove Gawker as it is "proudly a tabloid"?

A few sections above editors were talking about replacing low quality sources due to the controversial nature of the article. Therefore I propose removing Gawker from any section which is not about Operation Baby Seal. Why? Because it's "proudly a tabloid", as admitted by this Gawker article, article is recent, from September 2014. Gawker reporter writes that Like Gawker, TMZ is proudly a tabloid, so it’s not worth judging the site by the same standards of mainstream outlets. The article talks about how TMZ edited raw footage to "amplify its visual impact", and the writer says "I don’t think TMZ did anything wrong here". They've essentially sold themselves down from being a reliable source. The only thing that would be removed would be a single sentence in Political views... Gawker's Sam Biddle also raised the issue of the right-wing external forces "exploiting" Gamergate, noting the presence of Sommers, Yiannopoulos, Adam Baldwin, and others who have had nothing to do with video games prior and have only joined Gamergate to be anti-progressive. starship.paint ~ regal 05:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It is an op/ed piece by Sam Biddle after he made the tweets that led to "Operation Baby Seal". You cannot pick some single statement from some random article on the website to completely discount it as a source as the whole.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ah. Even worse, it's an op/ed piece from a tabloid site. By the way, Gawker's tabloid status was noted by the Columbia Journalism Review at this link. Also, a cursory search brought up Gawker celebrating a "Sensational Tabloid Journalist"
• Either that Gawker reporter was telling the truth about Gawker being a tabloid, or not. If not, then there's obviously a lack of editorial oversight for that article to be published, which also points to a lack of reliability. starship.paint ~ regal 06:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)