Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Sanctions enforcement

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

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

Why are we citing First Things so much?

I get impression that First Things has inherited the mantle of Erik Kain in the draft article. According to the ref list is now up to five citations. Is it because of the novelty of a conservative view being expressed in a reliable source? --TS 03:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• If it's a reliable source, then what's the problem? The New Yorker is cited at least six times, The Washington Post at least eight, New York at least five, Vox at least seven, Columbia Journalism Review at least eight. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is a first-person opinion column, not a news story, and must be cited as such. I write not because I am a Gamergate partisan—the movement was largely over by the time I had thoroughly investigated it—but because Mary Eberstadt is right: silence emboldens the practitioners of the New Intolerance. Gamergate was not a perfect movement, and neither was the loose coalition of conservatives, libertarians, and contrarians who opposed the social justice incursions into science fiction. But someone ought to speak out. If we wait for a perfect victim to emerge, we will be waiting forever. It's an interesting and useful source for a contrary opinion to the predominant one, but must be presented as such. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I've no problem with it being cited, but I worry that we often fall for a kind of recentism, picking up a novel article and giving it rather more weight than it can bear. The article suffers in such circumstances because one voice is being repeatedly juxtaposed to many others, in a way that gives it presentation false balance. It's a bit like altering our article on global warning to insert at length, and repeatedly, the views of the tiny minority of scientists who reject the well established greenhouse effect. --TS 04:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• The greenhouse effect is a scientific phenomenon. GamerGate is a huge mess. Now, on your "tiny minority" argument, if you'd look at the Misogyny and antifeminism section, we quote over ten sources (including The Washington Post / The Week / Iowa Public Radio / Macleans / Develop / GamesIndustry.biz / On the Media / The Daily Beast / Mother Jones / The New Yorker) who express an anti-GG POV, and you're protesting against one source (perhaps the only one) which provides a dissenting POV? You'd rather have 10-0 versus 10-1, that's balance to you? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

When talking about weight in articles, we don't just talk about how many sources are used, but how frequently these sources are cited and to what extent Wikipedia uses these to display information. I believe Tony Sidaway is talking about how frequently the source is cited, not just it being cited (which he seems to not mind.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

As I have pointed out above in my first comment, there are at least four more sources which have been cited more than First Things. Upon further reading, the New York Times has been cited seven times in the article, the Verge eight... get my point? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Those sources should be cited more, as they have each written multiple articles discussing the issue which represent the predominant, mainstream point of view on the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

But this is a social issue, not a scientific one. There are multiple ways of interpreting a social issue; there is no need to double down on a single standpoint, especially when one of your principal sources is The Verge, which is a tech blog, not a journal of American society. Shii (tock) 12:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Verge is far more widely read and more respected journalistically than First Things, an explicitly-religious, socially and politically conservative journal. Moreover, there aren't multiple ways of interpreting false allegations about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Shii (tock) 16:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Our article on First Things helpfully describes them. The journal is inter-denominational and inter-religious, representing a broad intellectual tradition of Christian and Jewish critique of contemporary society. With a circulation of approximately 30,000 subscribers, First Things is considered to be influential in its articulation of a broadly ecumenical and erudite social and political conservatism. Meanwhile, The Verge nets at least 20 million unique visitors per month, as of last March, and is almost certainly higher today. [1]

I happen to think First Things is well-written and generally well-argued. But there can be no argument that it's anything but a platform for primarily conservative religious and social views. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there something bad about expressing conservative religious views, that makes them not notable or relevant to American social upheaval? In the lead to that same article, we have a Newsweek quote calling First Things "the most important vehicle for exploring the tangled web of religion and society in the English-speaking world." I would argue that a religious outlook on social issues is more relevant than The Verge which is basically an industry and product review blog. How exactly do we determine who the most relevant voices are in American society? Shii (tock) 17:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The entire article reeks of recentism, and from one side of the discussion as well. There are more sources like First Things out there, we'd be smarter to find more like it than complain about reliable sources that are more accurate than the ones we currently use. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It does not "reek" of one side of the discussion. The "discussion", such as it is, is the general public looking at gamergate and being rightfully thoroughly appalled at the vicious sexist harassment and essentially ignoring idiotic claims of "but ethical journalism will be just presenting 'objective' reviews of games - ie whether or not they are fun" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for demonstrating exactly what I've said. It reeks of one side of the discussion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

There is only one side, I'm afraid. The minor, dissenting "but ethics" point-of-view is not equatable, and is given the coverage that it is due, per policy. That is all we can do, is go by the reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

As noted before, there are multiple sides and facets to this issue, of which only one gets a hearing here, and it's not due to the lack of coverage. This will be dealt with soon, I'm sure. No established editor wants to go outside of the reliable sources, but many of us do want the reliable sources used appropriately. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The best way to make it better is to suggest changes, complete with appropriate sources. If the coverage is there (which I dispute but if it is there) then you should be able to do that.Soupy sautoy (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the well is so poisoned it's better to wait and see if the worst parties are removed from the topic area first. Even questions get you labeled a troll, so right now it's more an awareness thing in hopes some change their tune. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That's been the 8chan/reddit playbook all along; agitate the real Wikipedia editors, run to Arbcom for relief, then hopefully return the atricle to all its Quinn/Sarkeesian/Wu-bashing early days It remains to bee seen whether this was an effective strategy or not, hopefully Arbcom was up to the task of drilling down to what really happened here. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

What any outside group wants is not my concern. I'm interested in a neutral article on a controversial topic, and we do not currently have that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually we do have that now, just needs a little quotefarm and bloat cleanup. The focu of the article as the Draft version stands is essentially correct. Tarc (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The draft article has a very skewed focus that does not reflect the accuracy of the situation, which is a problem that will need resolution eventually. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it does reflect the accuracy of the situation, as per all the reliable sources. Even the movement's supporters (c.f. First Things) admit that Gamergate is effectively dead at this point. The movement has devolved into random swatting, doxing and invective targeting its opponents, and isn't even pretending to be about "journalism ethics" at this point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This is what our article says, yes. The concern is what is actually occurring. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You and others have been repeatedly invited to present the reliable sources which say something else is occurring. That you and others have been unable or unwilling to do so suggests the accuracy of the situation is, indeed, well-reflected by our article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Many have and continue to do so. That the process has largely been driven by bad acting than fundamental encyclopedia building is why many of us, myself included, are taking a more wait-and-see approach. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we have all seen the attempts to present anonymous blogs and Breitbart as acceptable sources for salacious and highly defamatory claims about living people. They continue to not count as reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

And I'll join you in continuing to not want to include those sources in there, while continuing to criticize the skew of this article and the behavior that has created the failed article we currently have. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Two of the five times First Things is cited its just a footnote that's been tacked on to something already cited in another source. So it's not really that overrepresented. Bosstopher (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd say that it should just be stripped out. The purpose of the article is not to enumerate every comment anyone has made; the purpose is to give an overarching description of coverage. One blog post by a media commentator does not change that, and it is giving it WP:UNDUE weight to include it without further support that the opinion expressed is significant (eg. similar commentators stating similar things.) Additionally, after looking over it, it was frequently quoted in areas where the quote or opinion it was cited for was tangential to the topic of the paragraph; remember, quotes and cites shouldn't be added simply as a way of indirectly repeating your own opinions in the article, but because they genuinely illuminate noteworthy swaths of the public reaction. I'm not seeing that here. (Remember, we just managed to trim the article down from the QUOTEFARM warning; if people start citing random blogs to argue point / counterpoint against each other by proxy, it'll explode back to there in no time.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oh come on. Any pro-GG POV is obviously the minority, so you're raising the bar to "noteworthy swaths", as well as dismissing the source as a "random blog". This plainly increases the partial slant of the article. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

How long until you get it? You have stated it directly above, as per policy we represent the viewpoints of the subject as they are representative of the mainstream views. Since the mainstream views of the subject are near unanimous in their reception/view, per POLICY, our article will reflect such a view, and ONLY by doing so will the article be/retain its encyclopedic Neutral Point of View. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not what the policy says; we don't pick the predominate opinion and only present that. It will get the most details in the article, yes, but we don't simply omit other opinions. We cannot take any view even if it a near unaminous view taken by reliable sources, and we should be looking for reliable sources that cover the other side of the issue or give counterpoints, as long as those sources are strong reliable sources. I don't think this source qualifies as such, but the point is that to be neutral, we should be trying to find ways to be able to cover counter points if they are minority views; if more than singular sources express these points, we should be discussing them here. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The overwhelming majority of significant viewpoints in reliable sources are quite clear and unanimous and you have failed to provide evidence otherwise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Unanimous in saying what? I feel like we have constructed an imaginary "consensus" here without explaining exactly what sort of views it ought to be able to silence. Is independent analysis that appears in a reliable source somehow "wrong" in its entirety, or is it merely inconvenient because it forces us to engage in critical thought? What specific views are supposed to be "overwhelming", and in which specific sources do they appear? Shii (tock) 21:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Unanimous that gamergate is nothing more than a clusterfuck of online, vicious harassment directed mostly at women that signifies nothing more than the culture wars have reached into gaming. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The First Things article is basically on board with that, so you shouldn't have any objection to it. Shii (tock) 22:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Then we return to Tony's question of Why are we including First Post when we have better levels of sourcing for those claims? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said many times, because it is an outside source providing an independent viewpoint on what the cultural war is and why it is being fought. Shii (tock) 00:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

And then we are back to whether this singular voice is actually representative of a significant viewpoint when we dont have other reliable sources making comments on the same wavelength. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

NPOV is more than just UNDUE. There are several facets of being neutral, and one is impartiality. We should not be approaching this article with the mindset "There is only one major view, everything else is fringe", we instead, to be impartial, need to approach this recognizing that there are many other viewpoints on the situation and we should be trying to find sufficient (in terms of quantity and quality) of sourcing to include those other views to be impartial. Yes, the predominate viewpoint will still be the major fraction of this article, but to take the attitude that because the bulk of the sourcing have settled on one view that we should exclude all other views is not an acceptable way to write a neutral article. --MASEM (t) 22:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

And back to the "but its not impartial!!!!" without being able to actually identify any actual instances of non-impartiality. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

So I take it you want to keep the First Things discussion since it is, after all, impartial. Shii (tock) 22:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The attitude above is exactly the case of not being impartial - we cannot treat the predominate view as the only view , if there are reliable sources that also describe the other views (Which they do). Refusal to acknowledge that there are other views that have the possibility of being sources is a serious problem for editing neutrality. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

We DO cover the "but ethics", probably in far more detail and length than it is given credit the reliable sources . And claims of "impartiality" happening on the talk page are irrelevant to the NPOV policy which covers article content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

That's one angle. This source is a different point of view (coming from what appears someone uninvolved in GG). Trying to shut down discussion of these points when there are no immediately bogus issues (likely grossly-insulting BLP or a far-from-reliable source) because you claim that it is a point that won't fit into the article due to UNDUE is a problem; we have to be open to discussing all issues that are completely fair to discuss, unless it is clear that they have been discussed to death in the past. As this is a "new" source, that claim can't be made, and instead it is fair to see what other points align with this source and see if it is worthy of inclusion , as to be impartial to the matter. NPOV may not apply to talk page, but talk page behavior that attempts to bypass discussion as to what aspects of NPOV or other policies apply is not appropriate for talk pages. --MASEM (t) 22:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

then we are back to UNDUE- if the analysis/interpretation is only coming from this one guy, it is probably not a voice /interpretation that we should cover in any level of depth if at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Or we find better sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

We have New York Times, Guardian, PBS, Washington Post, Columbia Journalism Review, Australian Broadcast Company, BBC, On The Media, New York Magazine , Inside Higher Ed... not really sure what "better sources" you might be wishing for. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. Many of the opinions featured in the present article that are strongly against GG are just that of "one guy" (the writer), though when you take their points overall, they'll all in the same broad direction; that is, we right to discuss the broad opinions but we're still overly quoting singular voices representing different facets of that broad opinion. There's just as equal a valid broad opinion favoring GG from reliable sources, and if we're going to feature singular voices from the broad antiGG side then there's no reason to have as much call-to to a singular voice from the proGG side; otherwise, we remove the singular voices - at least those that are not major players in the overall controversy (eg we can including Quinn, or Intel, etc.) - least we admit being not partial and hypocritical. Note that the sources still have to be high quality, and this is not saying that the same amount of ink has to be devoted to the other side because that's against UNDUE, but it is UNDUE and impartial to allow detailed analysis of one side and refuse to allow similar from the other side when the quality of the sourcing is just as good. --MASEM (t) 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

(To add, I'd much rather prefer to keep the more detailed points from the higher quality sources on both sides - avoiding quotefarming but touching on core points that only secondary sources on the whole situation can make. But this means allowing those same from the proGG side when they come from a similar high quality source). --MASEM (t) 16:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"There's just as equal a valid broad opinion favoring GG from reliable sources" - Bullshit. Just plain utter unadulterated bullshit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Aquillion's comment here goes to the heart of my concerns. The viewpoint expressed in that essay is an extreme outlier, so all bt most cursory references risk unbalancing our article. Indeed we're using it in several places to gainsay the overwhelming weight of informed opinion. --TS 19:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the viewpoint is different does not change the fact that First Things is one of the most reliable and notable sources when it comes to analysis of American civic life, and is far more noteworthy than the likes of Vox and The Verge. Shii (tock) 21:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I note that User:Tarc has now removed the content twice despite the fact that he has neither justified his characterization nor indeed participated in this discussion at all. Shii (tock) 21:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Most reliable and notable according to whom? It's a religious magazine with a small readership as far as I can tell. Let's not over weight it. — Strongjam (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI, you can find First Things in any American library that carries political journals, alongside similar publications like The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, and the New York Review of Books. If you ever read a book about religion in America after 1990 you will probably see it mentioned. It's not my fault that you haven't heard of it; you only have to read the first two paragraphs of its Wikipedia article to see that it is far more relevant to encyclopedic summaries of cultural commentary than tech blogs. Shii (tock) 21:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, a religious journals take on a controversy founded in the technology world is not as relevant as a major technology news site take on it. It's useful, but it shouldn't be so heavily weighted. — Strongjam (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't think that the tech blogs have too much weight in the draft article or that they are biased (after all, we have the NYT and New Yorker in agreement), but they are very close to the controversy and deserve a bit of balance with an uninvolved attempt to frame the controversy in light of culture wars more generally. First Things should be considered more notable than, for example, Anders Sandberg's academic analysis which he posted on his blog, and which we currently devote a full paragraph to. Shii (tock) 21:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Geez, hysterics much? I have been following the discussion throughout, and saw little need to post a "I agree" post. But if it will make you feel better, I agree with the sentiments of Aquillion and TS. Happy? Tarc (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Please explain to me in what way I am being hysterical. Shii (tock) 21:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Your Downton Abbey-esque "my goodness, the dear chap protests without communication!" above. This is a fringe, minor point-of-view being giving more prominence that it deserves, now being edit-warred over by single-purpose accounts. This is what we're trying to get out of this topic area. Tarc (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Blog discussion

• Whether the First Things article was religious or not (having read it, I don't see the religion stuff), First Things Is a journal which critiques society and GamerGate is part of that. The relevance of the source shouldn't mbe questioned .Likewise the claim that it's a random blog should be nullified, lest we trim all "random blogs" from the article. I'd say First Things should have a lot more say on "social justice" than Vox. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • But it is one blog post in a journal only tangentially related to videogames or journalism. The reason we cite such commentators is to explain noteworthy coverage, responses, and analysis about the subject; when the overwhelming majority of commentary agrees on something, it is naturally noteworthy, and we need large numbers of citations to establish that. On the other hand, when one person writes a blog post disagreeing (even if it were a noteworthy blog), giving them this sort of extensive focus amounts to WP:UNDUE weight; our article is not meant to be a catalog of every blogger's opinions on the topic, nor a place where people can fire off quotes from various blogs as a form of point-counterpoint; rather, it is meant to summarize the noteworthy views. Nothing about First Things gives me any impression that their views on this controversy are intrinsically noteworthy simply because this blog is saying them; nor, thus far, has anyone made a particularly compelling argument that the personal opinions this blogpost expresses are noteworthy in their own way the way (eg.) the large-scale reactions summarized elsewhere in the article are. Therefore it is mostly non-notable in the context of the article. --Aquillion (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @User:Aquillion -- are you aware that The Verge and Vox are also blogs? By the standard you just employed, everything cited to those sources should be removed from the article as well. Shii (tock) 13:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
      • They publish both news and commentary about the news; they're not just opinion-blogs the way that particular column from First Things is. We only cite their more opinion-oriented pieces, as far as I am aware, for their opinion in situations where we can establish that this opinion is notable (eg. as part of a list of many other opinions to establish that a particular interpretation is widespread and not just one random blogger commenting on it.) When they focus on the news, I believe they pass WP:RS; Vox does its own reporting and has a history of issuing updates and corrections when necessary, say, which is an important part of being a reliable source (as WP:RS says, "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections.") Both of them are also heavily focused on analyzing and interpreting the news, the media, and reporting, which are central to this topic -- we badly need the kind of in-depths coverage they provide in order to write about GamerGate at all, given how complicated it is. The First Things article, though, is just a blogpost in which someone expresses their personal opinion -- it makes no claims to accuracy, nor is there any reason to grant that author's opinion any particular weight beyond anyone else's. Their 'about' page, as far as I can tell, talks a lot about how they intend to confront the ideology of secularism and push a religious viewpoint, but very little about how they intend to ensure accuracy or reliability in their articles. This, to me, gives me the impression that their opinion pieces would be worth citing (carefully, with an eye to avoid giving their particular view undue weight) to give the opinion of people who oppose secularism and want to push for greater presence of religion in the public sphere in an article where the opinion of people like that is clearly relevant (eg. articles about religion), but it doesn't give any reason to think that stuff from their opinion-pieces is reliable for matters of fact, nor any reason to think that their opinion is at all relevant in a topic like this one. --Aquillion (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
        • This is a totally upside-down world you have pushed us into. Remember, this is a social issue, so there is no "right" side, only a general consensus. What you are saying is that Vox is a better blog source because they claim to have exclusive access to the deepest levels of metaphysical truth, where as First Things is inferior because they admit they are approaching issues from a certain perspective. This despite the fact that Vox has been known for grossly biased opinion articles and politically motivated false reporting, whereas First Things pursues some modicum of intellectual honesty. I really hope Wikipedia doesn't work this way.
        • BTW, I'm not actually objecting to the current use of the First Things article in the draft, I just want to make it clear that it is an RS on this subject and should not be stripped from the article, despite how inconvenient that may be. Shii (tock) 18:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
          • • I wouldnt cite the federalist.com as a source whose claims and analysis should be taken seriously. They are pretty much just a muckraker without any reputation for accuracy themselves. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
              • If your distaste for thefederalist.com means that you require additional sources on the fact that there is no land bridge between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, I will be happy to provide them to you. Obviously my point was not to endorse thefederalist as a reliable source. Shii (tock) 18:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
                • If you were not using the federalist.com to attempt to bolster your claim, then why were you linking to the federalist.com multiple times as you attempted to construct your position? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
                  • The Federalist is a bad source for what we do here. That doesn't mean they're a bad source in the outside world for information on other sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
                    • Sure, outside Wikipedia you can choose to use sources that feed you falsities, rants and pablum, but that doesnt make them not-bad sources for information. It just means that in your personal life, you choose to be fed from bad sources.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
                      • But enough about Vox. Shii (tock) 00:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
                        • Wait, I thought he was talking about Verge/Gawker/Kotaku/etc etc. Are they bloggers or journalists now? I haven't checked the daily alert on the distribution list today.. Ries42 (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Grace Lynn swatting again

The Grace Lynn swatting discussion (archived here) petered out before we decided what to do about the story. I suppose it's been a busy week, but here we now have plenty of coverage of a Gamergate-related event by major reliable sources. It would seem odd not to cover it in view of that. --TS 03:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

She appears to be the only source connecting an address she no longer lives at to anonymous posting on a forum and concludes it's gamergate supporters in real time (what are the odds?). She's flip-flopped on GamerGate because of the inherent conflict of modern feminism and transgender issues. This is perhaps the single most unreliable incident reported. It discredits the other instances through association, though, which is a strong argument to ignore it. --DHeyward (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Basically every reliable source acknowledges the person responsible claimed to have nothing to do with GamerGate with at least one explicitly describing it as the likely work of an unaffiliated troll. We shouldn't include everything that happens to a person connected with GamerGate in this article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• This incident is already on the swatting article. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless we find some sources that talk about how things like the swatting are blamed on Gamergate when they aren't related, I'm not really seeing the point of putting it in given the lack of actual connection. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of attempts to deny the known facts as reported by multiple reliable sources, and at least one attempt to say that all the reliable sources say the exact opposite.

Could we get back to reality, please? We're going to have to cover this. --TS 16:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Based on what? The known facts are that she has some sort of relationship to Gamergate, but that the swatting was unrelated to the actual movement. If we're going to include it, and I still don't see a good argument as to why we should, it will have to include that information. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• 'I am afraid for my safety': California woman has 20 police sent to former home in Portland as part of Gamergate harassment campaign.
• Gamergate: Woman blames online harassers for hoax that sent 20 Portland cops to her former home

The sources are crystal-clear here; a person or persons under the banner of "Gamergate" swatted a Gamergate critic. We can even tie it to 8chan directly;

• 8chan user offers to “swat” GamerGate critic, cops sent to an old address

and the information contained there that the police are looking to track down the hoaxer's identity. All of this is relevant to this article. Tarc (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The reality is that her relationship to GamerGate is tenuous. The Oregon Live article isn't particularly reliable for Gamergate as they call it an initial movement for ethics in "video journalism." She felt she was being harassed when she was pro-gamergate, too. Sources reporting based solely what she believes is too much weight. The police didn't attribute a motivation or name a suspect despite her call to the Portland PD and providing her view and the 8chan post doesn't seem to care who they swatted as long as they were doxxed. --DHeyward (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Only one of those sources actually attributes it to GamerGate, one makes no attribution, and another presents it as Lynn saying one thing and the party responsible saying another thing. This source implies a connection, but notes the party responsible denies affiliation with GamerGate. In The Verge the parties responsible are dismissed as likely trolls unaffiliated with GamerGate. Even Gawker doesn't say GamerGate is responsible. So the people responsible are widely reported to deny affiliation, sources overwhelmingly avoid implicating GamerGate themselves, and at least one outright states it was likely the work of an unaffiliated troll. This would fit just fine in the 8chan article. We don't need to include every incident with a dubious tangential GamerGate connection in this article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like the same situation with the media on that Blizzcon speech, where many wanted to interpret a simple head nod to an interview question as a full-out accusation against GG (with the higher quality, more neutral sources properly identifying that it was an implied reference). We have to remember that it is factually true there are third parties out there not associated with GG either direction that want to stir the pot, and this sounds like a case of just that. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It was the 8chan "raid board" /baphomet/ who seem like the old 4chan /b/ that just love to raid and doxx everyone they can RetΔrtist (разговор) 10:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think it definitely belongs in the article, since there has been a huge amount of coverage connecting it to GamerGate; but we should be careful to source exactly what they say. In other words, we can report that most coverage has connected it to GamerGate, that the victim connected it to GamerGate, and so on, and that several news articles have noted that the anonymous nature of 8chan makes it difficult or impossible to confirm. But I think it's clear that sufficient sources have found the possibility of a connection to be notable enough and credible enough that we need to cover it here; it is, for the better or worse, a significant event in the coverage of GamerGate by reliable sources. The fact that an extensive list of reliable news sources found her allegations credible enough to publish is sufficient to include it in our article. --Aquillion (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Another Gamergate swatting. The target here is one Israel Galvez. Again, reported a reliable source.

• The Guardian, Jan 13, 2015, Gamergate hits new low with attempts to send Swat teams to critics

Further opposition to including these serious incidents in the article is looking increasingly silly. --TS 16:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, she is a Gamergate critic, but does everything that happens to someone critical (or supportive) of Gamergate need to be in this article? The swatting incident, the second this week linked with Gamergate, was co-ordinated on the “baphomet” subforum of the 8chan image board, a 4chan-style community which has become a hub of the movement, along with a subforum on the social news site Reddit. I didn't know that 8chan was a subforum of reddit or that the 8chan subforum "baphomet" was in any way affiliated with Gamergate. Those seem to be incorrect as a fact, no? The only connection to GG is that this person is critic of GG? 8chan ≠ Gamergate. Perhaps this is an article that is more appropriate for a criticism within the 8chan article? Ries42 (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Swatting is a particular notable form of harassment and I think it's received more then enough attention from RS to include in the article. Per Aquillion's comment above we should be careful say that it's been connected to Gamergate. I think Masem's edit to the draft article is a pretty good starting point, might need some editing to avoid WP:SAY. Strongjam (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC) —

I agree its a start, I've edited to make it clear that the reliable sources attributed the source to "baphomet." If we have a source that links the two (baphomet and gamergate) than we can add that and perhaps make a more causal link that the two are related. For now, I don't think we have a source that makes that link except in inference (i.e., critic of gamergate swatted by X, X must be pro GG instead of independently determining if X is actually related to GG or not). Ries42 (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian specifically states "in the latest attempted “swatting” attack linked to the Gamergate movement" and "The swatting incident, the second this week linked with Gamergate". We don't require reliable sources to "show their work", so to speak. If they made the connection, then we can use it. Woodroar (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind: 8chan baphomet users appear to be more on the disruptive side and less about any of the base GG "ethics" (even proGG at KIA believe the group is linked to GNAA), but we have no reliabe sources to make that connection otherwise. The problem right now is that because they operate off 8chan, which itself is strongly tied to GG (due to 4chan's moderation at the start of GG factoring into its creation), people are going to tie it directly to GG. I'm not saying that these swats aren't tied to GG (They are predominate anti-GG people that were swatted), but we need to be aware what's behind the scenes here, and the latest Guardian article is careful not to directly say the swatting came from GG supporters, just that its linked to the situation. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Masem, and want to add, it doesn't explain how its "linked" to Gamergate. I'm not asking them to show their work, but the link appears to be, from the article, that the target is a GG critic. That's a link to Gamergate. But I do not see where in that article it says that the swatting was attributed to GG. Its attributed to baphomet by name. If there is a source that directly links the two, we should definitely use it and then we can say "GG swatted X because baphomet is GG," but I haven't seen anything like that. Yes 8chan has been linked to GG, but there is also evidence and reliable sources that show that not all of 8chan is related to GG. Its clearly complex. I don't think we can go wrong though just attributing exactly what the reliable source says, and allowing someone to either make or not make the inference themselves. We shouldn't have to spell something out that the reliable source didn't specifically spell out. Ries42 (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The person responsible linked their twitter account on the 8chan thread, and that twitter account's bio has the email from the 8chan post. I haven't seen a reliable source dig into that yet but he seems nice and not GG. Weedwacker (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I would definitely be on the watch (and hopeful for the sake of the proGGers that aren't involved) about the nature of baphomet and how it is apparently distanced from GG. We have this Gawker article that explains their take on the nature of baphomet, but doesn't ascribe its connection or lack thereof to GG. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I doubt anyone wants to be associated with /baphomet/, they look like a very much like... well to be perfectly honest, they look more like the real scary boogeyman I've been hearing about (but maybe not seeing so much evidence of). We should look very critically at anyone who attempts to link baphomet with anyone in particular. Not that a connection couldn't exist, but it should be a solid, evidenced backed link and not a inference or opinion before we put it in the article. Ries42 (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, if the parties who keep reverting can come here and discuss please. I think that the blurb we have now is about as good as it gets, but I have two questions.

• First, the relation to Gamergate for these events appears to be that the targets were critical of Gamergate. That being said, the persons taking credit and who are being attributed with the attempted swattings do not appear to be tied or otherwise directly linked to Gamergate. At best it can be said that the closest link is that 8 chan and Gamergate are linked, but that would be like saying something that occurred in the "GamerGate" subforum on reddit is linked to the rest of reddit. The link is tenuous as described in the reliable sources at best.
• Second, with the first question and answer in mind, is this linked closely enough with Gamergate to merit inclusion in the article. It is related in the sense that it is similar to other harassment that has been alleged, and the its targets are critical of Gamergate; however, there do not appear to be direct links between these particular actions and a supporter of Gamergate, even in the loosest sense.

To this editor at least, this looks to be unrelated to the Gamergate controversy in the sense that while this was targeted at someone who may be considered part of the controversy, it was done for a reason and by someone unrelated to the controversy. Inclusion would make it seem as if those last two points are otherwise, unless we added additional commentary to that effect. Ries42 (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

in situations where it is your interpretation or the Guardian's, we go with the Guardian.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Theredpendofdoom: You seem to only agree with what some reliable sources say Gamergate is, but ignore any reliable source that seems to say what Gamergate is not. Is there a reason for that? It seems to be YOUR interpretation, not a reliable sources, that Gamergate is all of the evil things being ascribed to it, and absolutely none of the "positive" things ascribed to it. Care to comment on your inherent bias here? Ries42 (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

In the end we're going to have to go with what our sources say, and they clearly are connecting it to Gamergate. This is a good example of the problems with GG being un-organized and attributing actions. My personal sense (obviously this is all WP:OR and won't make it into the article) is that the people targeted were chosen because they're GG critics and that gets more press at the moment, but the person doing it isn't necessarily a GG supporter. I think we should include it in the article, but just be very careful about attribution. That should be fine at the moment since our sources aren't directly attributing it to GG supporters, just connecting it to GG, which to me seems reasonable. — Strongjam (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It's key that anti-GG people are being targetted, and there's still creating a fear of speaking out. It may not be the GG supporters or even those that might have harassed Quinn and the others 5 months ago, but as this sepearate Guardian article points out, "Like many Twitter campaigns, the ease of joining – which made it so powerful initially – eventually destroyed Gamergate. It became a magnet for sexist bullies who drowned out any substantive points. That said, the forces that drove it have not abated, so Gamergate is unlikely to die – it will simply mutate." This, my gut says, is part of that mutation, and why I hope we get more sources soon that call out what this group is and what seems to be their lack of ties to GG, if only to be clear how the GG hashtag has been easy to hijack for other purposes. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The SWATTERS are as completely and truly the "actual" Gamergate as the "but ethics" crowd and anyone who wants to be taken seriously should have in 5 months recognized that. Anonymous postings in troll havens is not a way to have a "movement". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"The SWATTERS are as completely and truly the 'actual' Gamergate as the 'but ethics' crowd...." Er, not unless they identify as supporters of Gamergate, no. Otherwise your definition of "Gamergate" is effectively "anyone on the internet who does something I don't like." Starke Hathaway (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

When you choose to be anonymous trolls on the internet, you get what you get. thats just the facts. The "ethics" gamergaters, if there are actually any of them, should have realized this months ago, but they apparently are a little slow and per the First Post some of them are just waking up to this fact now. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your own interesting if peculiar understanding of what Gamergate is, but the reliable sources don't share your unique perspective on class inclusion problems and neither should the article. Even if you accept the proposition that all Gamergate supporters are trolls, it does not follow that all trolls are Gamergate supporters.Starke Hathaway (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: To my reversion of your addition: the Guardian and other article stated there was a link between GG and the incident. The article did not link baphomet and GG as you would see by either reading the source objectively, or this discussion. If you want to put greater emphasis on the link between GG and the incident, feel free, but the source does not link baphomet and GG and any inference or explicit link in the article is inappropriate. WP:PROVEIT if you wish to state otherwise. Ries42 (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian explicitly states that baphomet is a subforum of Gamergate's online hub — the “baphomet” subforum of the 8chan image board, a 4chan-style community which has become a hub of the movement. That's "a link," obviously. As for your reference to "logic," it's not my logic, it's the reliable source's logic, and you're in no position to question that source's reporting and determination of a link just because you disagree with it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The entire quote, that you're taking out of context reads: The swatting incident, the second this week linked with Gamergate, was co-ordinated on the “baphomet” subforum of the 8chan image board, a 4chan-style community which has become a hub of the movement, along with a subforum on the social news site Reddit. By that quote, 8chan is a subforum of reddit (its not), further, the quote is describing 8chan as a "hub" for the movement, not baphomet. Baphomet is a completely separate subforum, and even the Guardian does not link GG to baphomet. If it said "Baphomet, a hub for GG" that would be what you're looking for. It doesn't. By your logic, all of reddit is also linked to GG. And yes, I'm attacking your logic, not the Guardian's. The Guardian is not editing WP to link baphomet to GG, you are. Ries42 (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's take this real slow, because you haven't understood it yet. The Guardian says that 8chan (all of it, as a whole) is a 4chan-style community which has become a hub of the movement, together with a subforum on the social news site Reddit. So no, the quote doesn't claim that "8chan is a subforum of Reddit," and if The Guardian describes 8chan as a hub for the movement, it naturally follows that its constituent components are as well. (Basic English meaning.) Your disagreement with The Guardian's conclusion is interesting, but not relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's take it even slower... removing the explanation gets the original sentence. The swatting incident, the second this week linked with Gamergate, was co-ordinated on the “baphomet” subforum of the 8chan image board along with a subforum on the social news site Reddit. The inserted section describes 8chan, thus: the 8chan image board, a 4chan-style community which has become a hub of the movement. Seperated, as it is done by the commas, its clear that the hub of the movement comment is directed at 8chan, NOT baphomet. But just because 8chan is a "hub of the movement" does not explicitly link EVERYTHING of 8chan with GG. That's a leap that you are making, not the reliable source. Its the exact same leap to say that "Reddit has been a hub of the movement" which would be true, and then finding a random subreddit (let's say, ShitRedditSays), which I think we can agree is not a part of GG, and then attributing something ShitRedditSays does to GG. The leap in logic is YOURS, not the reliable sources. Ries42 (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Further, by your logic, all of the "Anti-Gamergate" subreddits are also part of Gamergate. All the evils of the world are part of Gamergate by that logic. That is an interesting way to look at things. Ries42 (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The trouble with this argument is that it seems to be predicated on the idea that there is this body of people called Gamergate, and that you can divide up parts of the internet as "Gamergate" and "not Gamergate." As our article explains, it's not like that. If certain dark corners of the internet produce a certain kind of disgusting activity against perceived "enemies" of Gamergate (that is, anyone who has ever criticised such disgusting activities) then that activity is treated as part of Gamergate by a large proportion of reliable sources.

We should always make sure we don't mislead the reader into the belief that there is a coordinated campaign; as far as we can tell, there isn't. To all, appearances, it's mostly just a heap of people doing disgusting things to their victims and pretending the victims deserve it because of ethics in gaming journalism or something. We should just be upfront about the fact that attribution in these circumstances is necessarily loose. --TS 21:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not true. There is organization among those that claim to be challenging the ethics - it is weak and very unstructured with no leadership, but there are hubs of discussions where they talk about things (KIA, 4chan, 8chan), and they have tried to organize wikis and the like. What is the problem is that because of the lack of structure, the only way they identify themselves to the rest of the world is via the GG hashtag which is very easy to hijack, or to claim activity under without being part of the movement. (Both of these points are sourced in the article already). The doxxing issues are coming from boards that the GG supporters do not claim as their own and have been tracked to groups that operate primarily on the principle of screwing up things for others; as the Gawker article I linked above noted, the baphomet board is a board that wants to continue any type of attack or the like regardless of the cause. And because GG has not established a structure or a way to identify themselves, it is very easy for groups like baphomet to go after an anti-GG critic and have it appear as the actions of a proGG. The Guardian article carefully avoids blaming the swat against GG supporters, but instead properly from the baphomet board, and we have to do. (This is not to say there is a chance of people playing both sides of the game, but no one had made that claim yett) It's clear a few sources like the Guardian and Gawker are recognizing baphomet has very unclear ties with GG being co-habitating the social hubs that talk about GG. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

while some pie in the sky gg may want that to be the truth, it isnt. because GG has refused to have any type of structure, they are in no position claim or disclaim anything. we follow what the reliable sources indicate is gg related. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

And the sources say exactly what I said, except for what the origins of the baphomet board is, which no one has reported on, yet, but is something we should keep in mind to see if this is reported elsewhere. But the sources are clear to keep a separation between the GG movement and baphomet, the only commonalities being cohabiting the same forum sites, and that the doxxing have been against critics of the GG movement. --MASEM (t) 22:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are operating under the misguided perception that there is some true "gamergate" that is not harassment. that is just not so. being simply an anonymous posting drama board, anything done under the name of gg IS gamergate. they cannot "Its not GG" because the only identification of what is GG is someone claiming to be GG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No, not every troll on the internet is "gamergate." Not every "swatting" is gamergate. The guardian article isn't even about a gamergate "swatting." It show as picture of what a swat team looks like. It goes into detail about what a swat team did in Italy (though it related to a "swatting"). In reality there is a troll that called the police and 5 officers total eventually responded. No swat. No pictures. No confirmation of the caller. Same in in Portland. The only claims to gamergate are by those people insightful enough to call the police and let them know that the call that will be made about them is false. The police haven't made the claim it is gamergate or who perpetrated the call. The only reliable information is that a call was made and SWAT was NOT sent. --DHeyward (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Absolutely wrong. We have sources that have pointed to GG supporters that are against harassment and as such as absolutely cannot ever characters the movement as only being harassment. We as a neutral source cannot work off the theory that anything about GG is harassment. To say that GG is only about harassment is prejudgmental and factually wrong, and introducing a POV not supported by sources. That there's a history of harassment around GG is not in question, but we have to say neutral and work from the legitimacy of GG being about ethics. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

{{citation needed}} per The Union A minority also retorts to anonymous attacks against critics and dissenters through Online Stalking,Wikipedia vandalism and threats of violence. Therefore not all gamergate is harassment. Avono (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are some who say "I am GG and I want to talk about ethics, like how game reviews should be objective and not talk about how women are portrayed, just how fun they are". But they have no standing to say "That person who is SWATTING and pushing vile vile harassment and sending terrorist threats to universities is not gamergate." with no actual organization and no way to tell if the anonymous "ethics gg" is or is not the "SWAT gg" its up to the reliable sources to identify what in fact IS a gg, and they have spoken - the SWATTING harassers are in. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. The press has not attached the current swatting attacks to GG supporters in any way, only that they share social boards, which is far from being a proven fact. We must not be prejudgemental towards GG and cannot imply that GG is behind the swatting when sources have not done that either - yes, we have to mention the swatting in light of being anti-GG people, and I expect readers will come to their own conclusion that "oh, it's likely GG supporters behind it", we can't stop that from happening, but we cannot make that connection for them when none of the press sources do. And no, we cannot overlook the reliable sources that cite the GG supports in regards to ethics just because of the harassment. They get a legitimately fair treatment per NPOV and FRINGE, and failure to consider that means we are not neutral. We have to report on their side fairly (And the second most-recent Guardian article actually does spend most of their time describing their concerns in a legitimate light). --MASEM (t) 23:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what press you are looking at, but Gamergate hits new low with attempts to send Swat teams to critics seems to attach the current swatting attacks to GG supporters in a very direct way.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, WP has long discounted headlines of articles as not part of a WP:RS source, since usually it is a different writer/editor that writes those, for maximum eye-catchiness, and thus not representative of the content of the article. The article does not say anything to that extent, that's what we go by. --MASEM (t) 04:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's important not to forget that this article is about the controversy surrounding gamergate, not the movement itself. If critics of gamergate are being harassed by an online forum, that is relevant because it is an aspect of that controversy. Ultimately, it matters not to whom we can attribute that harassment, what matters is that someone who is known for being opposed to the movement has been attacked. That's what has made this a controversy- that someone who speaks in opposition to the movement has something to fear. Whether its from gamergate or someone else doesn't actually matter, they're being harassed because of gamergate- if gamergate didn't exist, they likely would not be harassed. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguably, in the first few months of this, it was about the "controversy" per the original AFD; the movement itself had little notability. But I would actually call that at this point months out, the issue is about "the movement" - including anyone that claims association with it, including the harassment done in the name of GG and related issues like this doxxing stuff (against antiGG). It wouldn't change the weight of the article (it is a controversy about what the GG movement has - purposely or inadvertently - created) but if you do a google hits check, "gamergate movement" now has about 25% more hits than "gamergate controversy". However, that's not enough to force a name flip, but it is something to consider here. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Careful Masem, talk like that is likely to get you labeled a conspiracy theorist (sarcasm) <3 Ries42 (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

arguably, they still all preface with "so-called" or use "movement" in scare quotes or go into detail about how its not really a movement as such but there really isnt a word for a bunch of people using the same hashtag. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

From what I have read in the various reliable sources covering this matter, the vast majority do not suggest GamerGate is to blame and thus neither should we. Aside from a few clickbaity headlines, they tend to just say x was a critic of GamerGate and that 8chan has a GamerGate discussion board on it. In the case of Lynn, the Verge explicitly stated that it was likely a troll and numerous sources noted that the responsible party stated he did not support GamerGate. Here the only claim that GamerGate was to blame was in a headline.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk like what, Ries? I think Masem hit the nail on the head: "it is a controversy about what the GG movement has - purposely or inadvertently - created". Even if it was inadvertent, this is the environment that gamergate has created. That is what the reliable sources are in agreement about. There's nothing conspiratorial about that. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Really? I responded with a sarcastic (I even labeled it as such in the post) comment about the sometimes point-y-ness of this talk page to be tongue in cheek and you... make an actual point-y comment directed at me? Think about that for a moment. I fully understand what this article is and isn't. I'd appreciate it if you don't lecture or make aspirations directly at me as your post does. I agreed with Masem's sentiment... that this article is currently one thing, but we shouldn't be so blind as not to realize it's current focus and organization may have shifted over time, and we should be aware of this shift should it prove necessary to make adjustments. Ries42 (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I must not have been clear in my point. It doesn't matter whether it's gamergate doing this bit of harassment or if it's J. Edgar Hoover (in fairness, it very well could be J. Edgar Hoover). The fact is that someone who has been critical of gamergate was harassed, and that is notable with regard to the gamergate controversy. That's ultimately the case with the women at the center of this controversey who have been targeted- they were critical of gamergate and then they were harassed. Maybe we shouldn't attribute this bit of harassment to gamergate, but to pretend it didn't happen seems baffling to me. Even if it wasn't gamergate doing the harassment, it is very clearly a story related to gamergate- so the reliable sources say. Ultimately, our article, if I'm reading it correctly, is about the controversy surrounding the gamergate movement. That is what this community has decided, for better or worse- it is not a biographical article about the movement itself. If any editors disagree with that consensus, there's a place to have that conversation - Masem's points in reply to me, while I don't agree, are a great good faith way of starting that conversation - but as the article stands now, anything that happens in relationship to gamergate is able to be included. That the harassment leveled against critics of gamergate has escalated to this level would seem to be worthy of inclusion in the article to me. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Two things have developed today: First this WA Post article that has a history of 8chan including as a haven for people to launch attacks in the name of GG after 4chan clamped down on it, and secondly, I've heard but can't find an RS at the moment that Caitlin Dewey, the author of that, has been doxxed and/or swatted in response to that article. --MASEM (t) 04:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

We've not always seen eye to eye, but I think your edits create a very well-written and fair accounting of the situation. Well done. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of PeterTheFourth's revert of an edit by DHeyward

Hi! I've reverted your removal of a qualifying statement regarding a series of tweets made by Sam Biddle. This area is very contentious, and it seems important to me that we make sure to describe it as reliable sources do, rather than simply quoting verbatim. These quotes were only recently added (previously we only described it as a series of tweets), and I feel that if it is important enough to have the full quotes there we should also describe it in full. If you disagree, feel free to revert it and discuss your decision here or on my talk page. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't add or remove it, but I sort of see DHeyward's issue. Specifically, the quotes are the most important part, but each edit continually adds more and more before it, rather than getting to the point, the tweets, and then allowing the discussion to take place afterword (including the fact that many sources feel they may have been jokes, although in bad taste). Ries42 (talk) 05:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

CJR said a lot of things in that article and most are not kind to Gawker or Biddle. Rather than keep enlarging it with point/counterpoint, it's better to keep it simple. Biddle tweeted, it had fallout, -> media, activists and advertisers reacted. Point/counterpoint on Biddle's or Gawker's intent is largely irrelevant. --DHeyward (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

In that case, is it necessary to quote the tweets rather than simply mention them? We're suffering from an overabundance of quotes as it is, and it would be nice to trim them away. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, paraphrased is always better. Quotefarm articles suck. --DHeyward (talk) 06:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Would "a series of mocking tweets" be accurate? PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"derisive" would be more accurate considering the reaction and apology. --DHeyward (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure 'regarding bullying of nerds' is the best phrasing (not that I have any suggestions for improvement), but it's already looking a lot better and more concise. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

To interject, I do not agree with removing the actual quoted tweets. While most of the time paraphrasing and removing quotes are good, especially when we have situations where there are dueling quotes (many instances in this article), in this case, the quotes are the actual disputed matter. Commentators, and hell, even those against Mr. Biddle may agree that they were a 'sarcastic joke,' that does not change the implied malice in the tweets. That is lost by not actually presenting the tweets, and the words Mr. Biddle wrote. We're losing important context by removing the words he spoke, as they are actually what is controversial and indeed, notable, about this section. We have an entire article to explain the context of why he wrote the tweets, and several commentators to explain what he "meant" by them; however, we shouldn't lose the actual words. It would be like removing Zoe Quinn's name from the article. Its not appropriate and I'm restoring the tweets. Feel free to add what you may feel is necessary before and after them, but the words should stay. Ries42 (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I've removed these quotes again, as proposed by DHeyward. The exact contents of the tweets are not important to understand what they were about nor the consequences. What is notable about the incident is that advertising was pulled as a result of campaigning, not that some tweets were made on twitter. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I really do not appreciate you removing the tweets again. Several editors have worked on this before you and DHeyward came to this section. At best, there was discussion by two editors over a period of a couple hours and then they were removed. That does not equal consensus. DHeyward made several edits, and I reinserted one part that I felt was necessary. There is important context lost by not just writing out the tweets at issue here. When the words Mr. Biddle wrote ended up costing gawker 'seven figures' in revenue, those words became pretty damn notable and important. Important and notable enough that even the Columbia Journalism Review article cited here felt it was important to quote the exact tweets in its article. Its like trying to talk about the impact of the Gettysburg Address, or MLK's I have a dream speech, without quoting portions of the speeches. Ries42 (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Regrettably, these two tweets were not as influential as the Gettysburg Address or the "I Have a Dream" speech. What important context is lost by describing them as 'a series of derisive tweets regarding bullying of nerds.'? PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course they're not as influential. That wasn't my point, the point was to show by analogy that there is context lost through paraphrasing. Of course this is always the case, but most of the time it isn't that big of an issue. The context lost is the actual messages that he wrote. We can either spend 2-3 paragraphs analyzing exactly what he meant, how he said it, etc. etc., or... we can just post the tweets in question and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. The tweets ARE the context lost. Ries42 (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) becuase they are not 'a series of derisive tweets regarding bullying of nerds' - they are a series of twits calling out gamergaters using the metaphor of "bullying nerds". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Unproductive. Do not revert as per Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement. Gamaliel (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bullying is a metaphor now? Weedwacker (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Perhaps you should take a Lit 101 class. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC) I again note you are not being appropriately civil with other editors. Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That issue aside, do you have a reliable source for the statement that Biddle's tweets are "a series of twits calling out gamergaters using the metaphor of 'bullying nerds'" rather than what the plain (verifiable) language of them actually says? Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not advocating that we call out the metaphor in the article, but neither will we use an inappropriately trimmed quote to misrepresent that the twit was about bullying nerds rather than gamergate -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

In the interest of explaining myself- I didn't believe that was the best description of the series of tweets, I was just reinstating DHeywards edit because I believed a summary was better than the exact quotes. Apologies if this was inappropriate. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree with TRPoD often; however, I believe we're in agreement here that it is better to just quote the tweets at issue and then follow with analysis from the sources of their meaning than trying to skirt around the issue and some how paraphrase them without just stating what was said. Ries42 (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Call for deletion posted accidentally on a different talk page

Non-actionable and unsupported conspiracy theorizing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following text was placed at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes by Kau-12 (talk · contribs). I believe it was intended to be put here and so I have moved it. Yaris678 (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC) This is last time I'm going to suggest this. WP:NPOV has been circumvented on this article. Despite this entire article being accurate due to WP:DUE, a large amount of the cited sources can be either directly, or indirectly traced back to Zoe Quinn, Leigh Alexander, or Silverstring Media. Leigh Alexander is a prominent tech writer, and is subcontracted to many different media outlets. She is friends with many of the writers cited in this article. Many of the writers at Kotaku, Gamasutra, and Polygon are friends or known associates of hers, making all articles cited by them subject to massive bias. Leigh Alexander herself writes for TIME, Vice and others. The above and many more writers covering this are also Patreon supporters of each others work. None of these writers have recused themselves about writing about a subject that they are actually involved in. All of these writers have ended up shaping the initial narrative of #GamerGate for the media outside the initial Games/Tech Industry. I am unsure if cited articles being inherently biased due to their closeness to the subject they are covering is covered under wikipedia policy. But hey, I'll give it a shot and ask you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kau-12 (talk • contribs)

Source Trimming

Bernstein, Joseph (August 28, 2014). "Gaming Is Leaving "Gamers" Behind". Buzzfeed. Retrieved September 7, 2014.

• Buzzfeed article, citing in two places in the Draft, and in both places there are other citations that are provided for the information. Can we kill this source? Seems to be only marginally reliable and I'd personally prefer not to infer much reliability to Buzzfeed. Comments? Ries42 (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Usually best to be bold about these things. I have no real opinion on the reliability of BF, but I've given it a go, as there's no real need to pile on the sources if something is already well sourced. — Strongjam (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm learning to be bold when necessary, but cautious on certain things, especially removal. Best to just double check in talk than to get stung ;) Ries42 (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

GG to be covered on Nightline tonight

[2]. It'll be up online here [3] by tomorrow at the latest. --MASEM (t) 03:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is ABC's transcript:

When Jumping into Gamergate Turns into Fearing For Your Life -By JUJU CHANG (@JujuChangABC) and KATIE YU.

And now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go away and read it! --TS 07:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Some of the stuff on page 2 of that we should look to add about the industry response. I could have sworn I've read from a high quality RS that there are a number of journalists upset that the major game co's have not really addressed anything in relationship to GG, including the issues of sexism that have come out (as described here). Also the fact that there's one quoted GG supporter expressing what I believe is a common issue regarding Sarkeesian (but not a BLP issue). --MASEM (t) 07:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I copied the link to the ABC transcript to Talk:Anita Sarkeesian in case it's useful there. I think you make a good point about ABC Nightline's declaration here:

"Nightline” reached out for comment, multiple times, to gaming companies such as Rockstar Games and Ubisoft to ask about the way women are portrayed in their games but have received no response."

Now that by itself would be a little too thin for my liking, because after all it's a stock journalistic statement indicating that at least they tried to get industry comment, and so its absence should not be read as a case of unbalanced journalism.

But I also recall that others have commented on how rare industry comment has been. Overall that topic may rise to the level of significance where we would want to devote space to it. --TS 07:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the Adobe/Gawker sources explained it. It's a lose/lose scenario for every company that has commented regardless of what they say so far. Adobe, specifically, was skewered. There is no upside for any company to comment. Rather, most of the major companies have women in prominent positions and highlight it (a la Intel and others). Their bottom line is profit so controversy is what they avoid. --DHeyward (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Getting the Swatting reports right

We seem to have had a hell of a time reading and reporting what The Guardian is saying about the Swatting attacks.

I've made this edit to clearly identify 8chan as "a hub of the [Gamergate] movement". As I discussed elsewhere, attribution is a difficult matter when there is no movement, per se, just a heap of horrible events, pace Guardian.

The fact that 8chan is where many of the more distasteful and newsworthy activities of Gamergate are organised is material to the topic. We can leave the business of parsing the names of 8chan subforums to offsite venues. We're definitely not going to play the "it's not Gamergate unless somebody mentions the hashtag" game. --TS 05:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The piece is extremely misleading. The picture, for instance, is not related to the instances. It's stock. It also uses the term "successful" for one of the SWATing attempts because Portland had 20 officers pass through the scene. PPD said it wasn't successful and no SWAT teams were sent and it was quickly verified as false. It talks about a random SWAT callout in Utah but it's not clear that was a "SWATing" call or whether just a recount of a random SWAT team. Most importantly, there is no corroboration of the caller to gamergate. In other words, it's a lot of hype. Both "targets" seemed to be aware of the attempt and neither were featured in our article before the calls but are now referred to as notable anti-GG figures but the caller is another anonymous but presumed gamergate supporter. --DHeyward (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

First, just because police didn't show up or went to the wrong door, it's still SWATing - the hoax calls were made, we have no reason to doubt that, but at least in the latter case, the people had given their local police the heads up this might happen. Second, even assuming the most possible good faith that no one honestly on the side of the GG ethics play is involved with baphomet or 8chan or the swats, the fact that the swats targeted people that have been identify as GG critics before shows how poorly that GG can defend itself when it has no structure or authority to assure who is really on their side and who is not; this is, as Tony points out, a huge flaw that most analysis have caught, in that this has been a movement hijacked by more malicious elements and they continue to refuse to move away or structure themselves to separate themselves from the negative elements. And the fact that this is still happening is a problem too. --MASEM (t) 06:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Mildly apropos this, I believe we do already have reliable sources in the article for the fact that Gamergate started as a harassment campaign. One of their few PR successes was getting some people concerned about journalistic ethics to hold their noses and jump on board. But that's already in the article. --TS 06:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

First, I never said it wasn't SWATing, rather it was not successful as it was described in that particular article. The very definition of success is a SWAT team responding. That didn't happen and portland police say it wasn't successful. The characterization of success is just one of the misleading elements of that source. GamerGate can't defend itself as it doesn't appear to be a movement in any real sense of that word - there doesn't appear to be a way to even identify members. They have been relegated to a role of Bogeyman. The fact that it is so disorganized that it can't be distinguished from random trolling leaves one wondering what it means to be anti-GG at this point and how are anti-GG people being targeted? If we haven't already named them, are they really "notable anti-GG critics" after an event but not before? I'd propose noting events and not people at this point, lest we find ourselves as being part of the problem. --DHeyward (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I moved some discussion of what 8chan was and how some GG moved there up a bit higher (under the Gamergate Hashtag), as 8chan's role becomes important in relationship to the Streisand Effect; that wasn't removed, just moved to where it was more appropriate. --MASEM (t) 06:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Well caught. We now have far more sources on 8chan than we had before Christmas. Thank you, Santa! --TS 06:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, 8chan has gotten into a lot of trouble (not just GG related) over the last several days, and I expect we'll see more harsh words about it as those stories get around. --MASEM (t) 07:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Are we using the Washington Post's recent piece on 8chan? [4] It's quite recent but ties a lot of previously disparate elements together. --TS 07:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

We seem to be really terrible at reporting what The Guardian said. Once more I've had to restore what they actually said about the relationship between 8chan and Gamergate. This isn't some random board, it's strongly associated with Gamergate. --TS 16:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And this time I reverted you. You keep readding it, but it is CLEAR that the Guardian is describing with that section what 8chan is to an audiance that probably has never heard of it before. Continually putting it there is clearly an agenda based edit. We describe 8chan in depth elsewhere AND in its own WP article. It doesn't need to be there. If you want to add it further, put it in the description of 8chan or where the movement is discussed. Thank you. Ries42 (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears that there is an attempt to blame not-gamergate for the swatting which the reliable sources attribute to Gamergate. Why are we second guessing reliable sources? Hipocrite (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I should think we all here share the same agenda as The Guardian: to explain clearly to people who want to know the connection between the Swattings and Gamergate. That is why The Guardian says what it says, and why we should say it too. --TS 16:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The wording the Guardian source (outside of the title line) carefully does not say GG is responsible for the Swat. They say antiGG were swatted, they say that the boards these swats were organized from co-habit boards that GG refuges from 4chan have been using. They do not say "GG supporters are swatting", but they are leaving that likely conclusion to be left to the reader. If anything, they make it clear that this is only a segment of GG that might be involved. It's also clear from newer sources that 8chan, as a whole (not just baphomet) has become a central point for the organization and planning of things like harassment, doxxing, etc., not just that tied to GG. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I broadly support that reasoning. State the relationship. --TS 16:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian says "linked to the Gamergate movement", not "linked to the Gamergate controversy" or "linked to events happening in Gamergate". They specifically link swatting to the movement. Woodroar (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tony Sidaway: I agree that we share the same agenda, to explain clearly the connection between the swattings and Gamergate. I disagree that using an inline, implied, "explanaion" is making it clearer. "baphomet" and "8chan" are two different things, although connected. To use an analogy, you can correctly say that "The Earth" is a hub for Gamergate, because Gamergate occurs within some subsection of "The Earth". Someone on "The Earth" did X. Does that mean Gamergate did X? No. But if you say "X was coordinated in the "The United States", a subnation on "The Earth" planet, a hub of the Gamergate movement" you would be technically correct and may or may not be implying something without explicitly stating it. As editors it is our job to deconstruct the actual, explicit allegations that are important and completely, and clearly explain them. We explain what 8chan is, and how it is a hub of the movement, in a different section where we have the opportunity to go into depth and clearly explain what that means. The Guardian article doesn't have that opportunity, and frankly, a little sloppily, tries to do so in a way that leaves room for misunderstanding and implication that may or may not be intended. If the Guardian said "baphomet" is a hub of the movement, then you would have an explicit link to source. We don't source by implication though, no matter how reliable the source. Ries42 (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely "linked" to the movement because the swat came to anti-GG people. It doesn't say it was done "by" the movement. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I dislike using the "movement" language where there is no accountability; Gamergate as we write about it is just a sequence of one ghastly thing after another done by people to people for hideously distorted and pointless justifications, because that's pretty much how all our reliable sources see it. Either way, the reliable sources nearly all say this is part of the horrifying litany that is Gamergate, and the link is 8chan. I think we should make the link clear. That's the entire and sole purpose for which I opened this discussion section. We are really very bad at doing this, and I suspect some of that may be because there's this false idea that somehow we can authoritatively rule in or out Gamergate, by asking a spokesperson or something. --TS 17:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you dislike using "movement" language. However, reliable sources do use it in that form. Gamergate can refer to many things. When writing about it on WP, we need to be exact as to what is meant in a specific usage so as not to be confusing. Using implied language is not exact. While you are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to force WP to mold to it. Ries42 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And it's getting a bit day when people are seriously saying that Baphomet and 8chan as distinct entities. 8chan is an image board and baphomet is essentially a subfolder of that board in which certain activities are coordinated. Making that kind of distinction is like saying WP:AN and Wikipedia are distinct. The same users can post anywhere; the only difference is the name and the kind of post allowed. --TS 17:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Using wikipedia as an analogy doesn't quite work. Reddit is a more apt analogy. "baphomet" is to "8chan" what a subreddit is to "reddit". If something happened in the subreddit "GamerGhazi" which is very clearly NOT a part of the "gamergate movement", we can make an interesting implication, can't we? "X was coordinated in "GamerGhazi," a subforum of reddit, a hub of the [gamergate] movement." That line is completely and technically correct. The implication is that X was done by the gamergate movement. But the facts above clearly show that the movement is not explicitly linked to "GamerGhazi," if anything, "GamerGhazi" is completely opposed to the movement known as Gamergate. The same exact implication is made in the Guardian article, and without the explicit clarification of what "baphomet" is to the movement. Is it a part of it? You cannot definitively answer that based on the language within the Guardian because its unclear. That's why your edit doesn't clarify the situation, it just muddles it more. Ries42 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Tony, my issue is that language you are adding to the article is vulnerable to a misleading interpretation. "[S]watting attempts were coordinated through the "baphomet" subforum of 8chan, a board which had become a hub of Gamergate" can be interpreted as meaning that either 8chan or baphomet is a hub of Gamergate . The former of these is correct and the latter is not. We can do better. Starke Hathaway (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source recount of GamerGate

This guardian piece is a history of GamerGate. It appears much more objective in covering various viewpoints than the current or draft article. It seems odd that our article would be so divergent from this sources version in tone and content. They managed to avoid 'misogyny'. Are we on the wrong side of history? --DHeyward (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The article concludes that Gamergate became a magnet for sexist bullies who drowned out any substantive points. Well, actually, that's pretty much what our article says — that there were some people with good intentions, but they were long ago overwhelmed by misogynistic trolls who ensured that the movement's enduring public image would be of an angry, bigoted, incoherent lynch mob.

Avoiding a word that a vast number of other reliable sources use repeatedly to describe the movement based on the fact that a single source didn't use the word, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to be supportable. Moreover, "misogyny" is a synonym for "sexism" when that sexism displays prejudice against women. "Sexist bullies" who specifically oppose women are... yes, misogynist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah north you kill all of the fun RetΔrtist (разговор) 06:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

But seriously, the article concludes that Gamergate is unlikely to die – it will simply mutate. The article lists all of the grievances of the culture aspect of the 'weird, gay indie devs' and the patron supports etc. --RetΔrtist (разговор) 06:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a fine source, and very much in line with our article. There are many more ways of describing misogyny than using a single word. "Gamergaters seemed angry about ... the increasing number of women playing and featuring in video games" is a pretty effective way of implying that misogyny is in there. It's also a facet of Gamergate that generated a lot of activity and caused a lot of harm. This is why our sources write about misogyny a lot. --TS 06:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yea, the source doesn't counter anything in the article, it just starts from the idea of the movement, instead of the harassment. As I've offered before, we might want to think that this might be better written from that perspective (of the movement, creating controversy due to both their ideals and the means they (or others using the name) have done) but there's no pressing need at the moment to do that. --MASEM (t) 06:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Starting from that perspective would greatly improve the article. That was my point. The actions in a timeline are not disputable. Their relevance and role and meaning. though, is the difference. This source covers everything we cover but relates it in much more of a historical way from the viewpoints of the actor, rather than a characterization of the actor. --DHeyward (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we can use this to expand on the "culture war" section, as Retartist mentions above, this discusses the hostility to devs who are making non-mainstream video games as a motivating factor, which isn't touched on much in the current article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I should have made the distinction: gamergate doesn't care that these weird "deep" games are being made but that they are receiving too much coverage by journalists when the games are one step above a choose your own adventure book or that the latest Call of Duty won’t let you shoot nameless baddies - but instead ask you to talk about your feelings. --RetΔrtist (разговор) 11:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec) It's not just the word, it's the entire tone and substance of the narrative. That would have been an excellent WP article on this topic. It describes the start, buildup and demise of GG and reserves misogynistic activities for its chaotic end. Contrary to NBSB, misogyny is not a synonym for sexism. I don't disagree with the source at all. Our article isn't even close to that article in content or tone, though. Our article is a very different narrative. It's apparent to even an uninvolved reader which version is neutral in tone and content and it isn't WP. --DHeyward (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not how the English language works. Sexism: prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender. Misogyny: the hatred or dislike of women or girls. So yes, if one is widely known for viciously-sexist attacks on women in video gaming, they will likely — and entirely fairly — be described as "misogynist." They have demonstrated behavior which indicates they hate or dislike women or girls.

You are correct that they are not strictly synonyms — for example, sexism can be unintentional, in which case it would not be misogynist — but that is obviously not the case here. The wide, wide array of reliable sources which specifically use that word are irrefutable, and suggesting that a single article which doesn't use the word, but which clearly expresses the anti-female prejudice inherent to Gamergate, means that we should remove or downplay the word, is simply a misuse of the source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, forget the word and I already knew I was correct. The tone in that article is that sexism (and tropes as an extension) has always been an element of gaming and only one part of gamergate. There are intentional female tropes in all media. The fact that you lump all intentional depictions of women in a sexist role as misogyny is a fundamental misunderstanding of language and perhaps why the tone of the article is so far off the NPOV mark. --DHeyward (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you're conflating two related issues: sexism in video games, which as critics such as Sarkeesian have readily pointed out also exists in other media where it is also criticised; and the misogyny of the death and rape threats and other attacks on women in gaming. This article is mainly about the latter. --TS 07:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not conflating it. Rape and death threats are easily defined as misogyny. The bulk of GamerGate, according to this source, is not about rape and death threats. That's why there is a difference in tone and coverage. This the key distinction: gamers are upset about the focus of journalists that try and fix sexism in games. In addition there are the rape and death threats. Those are two separate issues. We merge them in the article and it's clear from NBSB's explanation as to why. The source does not merge them. There is a clear demarcation between sexist depictions of women in games and actual threats to women in the gaming industry. One is sexism, the other misogyny. We don't distinguish and treat the group that seeks to keep gaming unchanged as the same people that are threatening death and rape. That is a huge distinction between the Guardian source for history and our article. --DHeyward (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources — including The Guardian — do not treat them separately, because the two are one and the same by Gamergate's own choice not to become seriously organized. Our article extensively discusses the impossibility of separating potentially-legitimate concerns from misogynistic garbage spread by sexist bullies because Gamergate has chosen to do everything anonymously on chanboards. As The Guardian article you cite discusses, the two cannot be separated — they are permanently attached at the hip and the very word "Gamergate" is permanently tainted. While one might wish for Gamergate to be about legitimate concerns with ethics in gaming journalism, it factually is not about that due to the fact that it was launched by, as The Guardian notes, unfounded accusations about Zoe Quinn, which were seized upon by an army of internet dwellers ... to police a woman’s sexual behaviour under the guise of promoting “ethics in games journalism”. The Guardian appropriately treats that claim as a facade hiding an ulterior motive of attacking Quinn.

You state that We don't distinguish and treat the group that seeks to keep gaming unchanged as the same people that are threatening death and rape. This is just so, because there is no way to distinguish them and there is plenty of evidence that there are many of the latter among the former. Not all, certainly, but many. Because Gamergate has chosen to be anonymous, leaderless and intentionally uncontrollable, there is no authority to claim responsibility for or disavow actions. Thus, anything which claims to be Gamergate is Gamergate, for all intents and purposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Again this source manages to do what you believe is unpossible. If you cannot distinguish arguments, what they are saying and who is saying it, you may want to take a step back. The Guardian did it and didn't break a sweat or have to do linguistic gymnastics as you appear to do. --DHeyward (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

" Soon, an army of internet dwellers had seized on this opportunity to police a woman’s sexual behaviour under the guise of promoting “ethics in games journalism”." It does not, nor does it even try to. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That's actually a good quote we should look at maybe replacing a quote from a less notable commentator with that. Could fit into either the Debate over ethics allegations section or the Misogyny and antifeminism section. — Strongjam (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, the article you cite notes that there are several arguments being made as part of Gamergate, but it does not suggest, as you claim, that the people threatening death and rape are entirely separate from the people who seek to keep gaming unchanged. Indeed, it notes "sexist bullies" are responsible for destroying the movement, who presumably want to keep gaming unchanged and are threatening death and rape. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

So adopting that tone, language and narrative is okay with you? It wouldn't take much to rewrite using that source as a template if you are indifferent to it. --DHeyward (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If by "adopting the tone" you mean that because this one report does not specifically use the word "misogynistic" that we toss out all of the other sources that do use that term and remove misogynistic from the article, no. I do not agree to that at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope, not that at all. This source has the misogynistic attacks that arose out of Gamergate. We can certainly use that word to describe that aspect of Gamergate. --DHeyward (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I just remembered who Helen Lewis is.

"It reminds me of the screenwriters’ adage: no villain knows he’s the villain. He thinks he’s the hero in a different film."

I think it's wonderful if more and more people are enjoying her well written pieces. --TS 09:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I did. As politicians must know, you can knock down factual error after factual error but it means nothing if the narrative backbone remains intact. Cuts deep. --DHeyward (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I know you can't possibly be seriously proposing that we repeat the debunked lies of trolls, so I think at this point we are no longer engaged in meaningful, mutually comprehensible communication about how to edit the article. --TS 10:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Uh no. The guardian piece is not repeating any lies that I'm aware of. It's tone, content and narrative are much more neutral depictions of the same topic. I propose adopting it. --DHeyward (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I was responding to your apparent admiration for the notion that politicians know that a false narrative sometimes persists in the face of cold facts.

I love the article. I love ours, too. Ours has far more detail and, unlike this one, is the result of the Wikipedia process. It's fine to love both. If you like this Guardian article but not ours, I wonder if that's because it's written to be witty and entertaining and thus doesn't dwell on the darker side so much. That not what we exist for.

We write about five months of death and rape threats, failed attempts to put pressure on advertisers, women's lives ruined by constant bullying, and everything else, because that's what happened. --TS 00:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of "movement" in lede

We are arguing over something that is settled. While it can be said that many reliable sources do not talk about, or give credence to the movement, many others do or at the very least refer to the existence of a movement.

The Guardian: "Five months on, the movement has faded to a background hum." The Guardian refers to a movement.

NYTimes: "That disclosure galvanized a movement on Twitter among people who used the #gamergate hashtag to attack journalistic ethics in the video game press." NYTimes calls it a movement.

When reporters characterize Gamergate as misogynistic, proponents say those views don’t represent the movement. Instead, many claim to be advocating greater ethics among the video game press." The Columbia Journalism Review refers to it as a movement.

Since when is personal opinion more important than The Guardian, The New York Times, or the Columbia Journalism Review? Ries42 (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

As I've noted before, there are about 25% more hits on "gamergate movement" than "gamergate controversy". Yes, it's unorganized, its motives as a movement are highly in question, etc. but the group of people that support this are called in RSes as a movement. As a neutral source, we should prioritize the fact they call themselves a movement over any other sources, after which we can include all the criticism about it later. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

until we show they are "gamergate movement" and not "so-called gamergate movement" or "gamergate 'movement'" or "shadowy and threatening movement" ghits claims are pretty worthless -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

worthless As are claims that a movement does not exist, no matter how much we may want that to be true for whatever reason. Weedwacker (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)