Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Sanctions enforcement

All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to discretionary sanctions.

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

GG and Calgary Expo

New thing?

• http://www.themarysue.com/calgary-expo-gamergate-evicted/ (Is MarySue RS? In any case it has a link farm.)
• http://kotaku.com/gamergate-booth-kicked-out-of-canadian-comic-expo-1698538297
• http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/1343383/rumours-of-gamergate-booth-at-calgary-expo-have-fans-up-in-arms/
• http://www.techtimes.com/articles/47199/20150418/gamergate-booth-removed-from-canadian-comic-book-convention.htm
• http://calgaryherald.com/entertainment/local-arts/booth-evicted-from-calgary-expo — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForbiddenRocky (talk • contribs) 18:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I would wait to see if there's a more substantive article about this (which I have seen too) that covers the issue head to toe, which might take a few days as to allow the Calgary Expo to issue its own press statement on the matter. It should be mentioned but I'd want to see what the bigger picture is that's considered since there's a lot of angles between just these sources. (there's a bunch of online activity too such as [1] resulting from this). --MASEM (t) 18:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The Mary Sue is indeed reliable for their original content (i.e., no reblogged "[via some-other-site]" content), which this appears to be. I would also like to see a few more sources and a bigger picture, just for weight and long-term relevance. Woodroar (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• For purposes of Gamergate, as The Mary Sue is a feminist-slanted take on pop culture matters ("We pride ourselves on being an inclusive, feminist community of people who not only love what they love but care about others who love it and have an intense passion for those who create it." from their about page), we should not consider it a strong RS for non-opinion materials, though note that in their current article I'm not seeing any issues of their reporting when collaborating other sources, just that I would make sure statements made by TMS we use are clearly attributed to TMS. In this case the Calgary Herald between the above linked one and this followup after the con have enough details, and we could at least use the Mary Sue to explain the first-person account of the forum being disrupted (eg: "Panelist Brittney Le Blanc described to The Mary Sue an incident where members from the group attempted to derail a panel on "Women into Comics"...") --MASEM (t) 17:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart. Examiner also has a report on it, however that link seems to have been blacklisted... However it'll be a while for an update, since evidence so far in the social media speaks a different tale with not a single evidence from Calgary Expo yet. I would advice waiting until they make an official statement with their response outside of twitter.TheRealVordox (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

They made a more lengthy statement on their official Facebook page, as mentioned in the Calgary Herald link above. Woodroar (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Read that as well, but saying "Have" and not showing it means there's more to the story. TheRealVordox (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

We can't make that leap into original research territory. We've more than enough material to start including the misconduct of the Honey Badger boothpeople into the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

What I'm not seeing (not that I don't disbelieve the reports) from when I last checked is explaining the actual behavior problems, if there were any. I have heard they disrupted a panel, and of course got a booth under potentially falsified terms, so their expulsion was within CExpo's rights, just that the account of details is not as strong from the higher RSes yet. That might come tomorrow/Monday. I'd like to see the general expo end and post-con accounts made so we're not misreporting these breaking details. --MASEM (t) 02:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• http://www.rawstory.com/2015/04/misogynists-disrupt-sci-fi-convention-play-the-victim-when-kicked-out/ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that an unreliable source due to blog status? TheRealVordox (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

One sometimes gathers the impression that, for Gamergate supporters, a "weblog" is a news site that is critical of Gamergate. Here’s the [masthead for Raw Story]; it sure looks like they've got plenty of staff! MarkBernstein (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd classify Raw Story as a weak RS; per our article on The Raw Story "The Raw Story describes itself as progressive, bringing attention to stories that it sees as downplayed or ignored by other media outlets." In other words a usable but weak RS, particularly in light of straight up newspapers like Calgary Herald reporting on the issue. Also keep in mind, in the header for this specific story "Pandagon is daily opinion blog covering feminism, politics, and pop culture." so this is just a blog, most reposting from the Mary Sue's story with added commentary. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

While waiting to see what other sources we can pull from, where do we think this should be added? This isn't really under harassment and feels like it falls better under "Efforts to impact public perceptions". --MASEM (t) 21:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate-affiliated Events? Although that may become pretty overcumbered since it's too loose of a word. Something akin to "GamerGate support" without using those exact words and a use of a word that restricts it to events where GamerGate is connected. Tough word to find for this if it's supposed to be objective and neutral. One of the question that needs to be answered by Honey Badger Brigade if it was any kind of public relationship at all from a source to make such a claim in your original suggestion of "Effort to impact Public perception".

This does remind me of the harassment/threats/discimination that GamerGate supports already have like with the needles and the mouse(And various other unmentioned) targeted for their politics. Although not certain it could be added in that context due to the article's form and timeline. TheRealVordox (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting to see the varying opinions on how we should represent the story of gamergaters being kicked out of a convention for disrupting it. My opinion: Represent it as described in my previous sentence, which I believe happens to be how the reliable sources are reporting on it. Probably best put in the 'Gamergate activities' along the lines of "In April 2015, gamergate supporters attempted to host a booth at the Calgary Expo but were asked to leave after violating several of the expositions policies." PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I can go with this. (Also,if it can be done without wandering into UNDUE, mentioning the Honey Badgers might be encyclopedic and/or helpful in web searches.) 15:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForbiddenRocky (talk • contribs)

Daily Caller report on the subject. TheRealVordox (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

balkanization reverted

I reverted the balkanization sentence. What is there doesn't reflect the message of the cited article. The way balkanization is used in the article doesn't line up with the Wiki article linked. The use in Paste is much more nuanced and a little idiosyncratic. If what the author means by balkanization can be added without bloating that sentence, perhaps it can be readded. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarification: The Wiki page says, "pejorative geopolitical term", what the author of the article is trying to convey is not perjorative - the fracturing is kinda the main point, but more interesting is the description of where the fractures actually are. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Wikipedia itself should not considered the authority here. See for example, M-W's definition of the term [2] which emphasizes the compartmentalization of a previously unified group, with or without political nature. Oxford's version [3] is similar, lacking the political bent. WP's version of the term being lacking of what I see as more common understanding of the term should not be a reason not to include what is a rather interesting taken on the situation. (Alternative, look at wikt:Balkanization from the wikitionary side which we could link instead). --MASEM (t) 02:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Or even better we can link to Balkanization#Other uses which takes the term at the more general value, in context of the origins of the term. --MASEM (t) 02:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Still the other uses says, "However, Robert Morgus' and Tim Maurer's study suggests that the alarmist term “Balkanization” should be replaced with more appropriate terms as fragmentation and diversity." That is the problem is with the sentence as written. Balkanization sounds sexy as the money quote, but without of the context of the article the wikipedia sentence changes the meaning of the author's message. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Except that the Paste author specifically goes into the whole history of the Balkan peninsula (from where Balkanization arises from) as to explain how the term is appropriate to GG. And while fragmentation is part of the concept, it is the fragmentation with antagonistic results that is coming from this author and is what other sources outside of WP consider Balkanization. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The way I read it is a de-emphasis on antagonist fragmentation and more on healthy identity and relationships with other communities, "In short: a community should both ground and empower its members, so that they are capable of standing before society as neither nemesis nor nullity, but as a person." ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The opinion is based on a more neutral stance - that GG was still a bad thing, and that the industry recognizing that they should not consider the gaming consumer as a single specific stereotype and working to serve a much broader number of groups is a good thing, but the way this was done inadvertently created antagonism between the groups, which the author believes is the reason the GG situation is so aggressive and have taken attack approaches - exactly the same means that the breaking up of the Balkan peninsula created numerous groups with hostility towards each other. The quote you cite in context is a criticism of how the industry turned to speak negatively on the gamer identity after GG started (the Death of Gamer articles), which furthered the fragmentation and antagonism in the process. Hence the need to tie this to the accepted definition of Balkanization. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If the source uses it in such a nuanced way and it requires as much explanation as is here to justify its inclusion, I see no reason to include this particular sentence about balkanization- I don't see it adding that much to the article anyway. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

No, this is a critical opinion, being a neutral stance from a highly RS that comments on issues on both sides. The term Balkanization is not a novel term, and easily defined. The issue that WP's page does not reflect the common way the term is defined in reliable sources is not a reason to exclude this but instead to fix the WP article on Balkanization (which is noted to have a tagged problem, so this is known). That's why even a link to wikt's version of the term would be just as good. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I think in order to introduce this properly, you'd wander way into UNDUE for the Paste article. It's not that I don't agree, but that as PeterTheFourthnotes - it's not adding much. Actually, I'd say this argues that there should be an article about culture war somehow. The comments in the Paste article are less about GG and more about gaming and culture in general. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

its basically just another "gamers are dead" article only going so far as to say "gamers never realy existed except as a concept used by designers and marketers." As he himself says, he is not using "balkanization" in its common usage, and so if we decide to use this source, there is no reason to use the term "balkanization" and then define it as he definesi t - just cut to the core and say that he thinks the new visibility of the various factions of the gaming community is a good thing if they can scope their identities without the new identity being solely/primarily in opposition to some other identity a la "i am a hardcore gamer not a wussie casual gamer." "I am a casual gamer, not a hardcore gamer lunatic" . But I am not really sure how that ties to the subject of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Key points this essay establishes include: 1) prior to the last few years, the gaming industry has centered its focus on "young male gamer" and only recently has taken significant and positive steps to recognize that there's large diversity among games and thus no longer focusing on that one group. 2) by doing that, those a positive step, it had the potential to create antagonism from those that were part of that core set (as had happen in Balkan), and in fact did create that, with the most visible effect being Gamergate, and 3) the industry's response to GG, primarily the "gamers are dead" article, was not a step that would help calm matters and there were other ways the industry could have responded to promote acceptance and unity while still being diverse. This is a somewhat different opinion from the other takes we have presently in the "gamer identity" section, and as from an RS, should be included. It is using the term of Balkanization as defined by modern dictionaries, not some obscure meaning that our WP page puts secondary to it. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

About the FemFreq Twitter (Re-Discussed)

At the SVU episode point, the discussion of using Twitter as a point of interest in said episode that sparked a whole slew of different consequences, I wish to reopen the discussion of using that twitter input from FemFreq due to it's very loose connections to Miss Sarkeesian.
-FemFreq is an organisation and as such it could be anyone in the organisation that said the twitter.
-There's no proof of a connection of the amalgation of the female developer in the episode, Miss Punjabi, except speculations and assumptions.
"The character Raina Punjabi (played by actress Mouzam Makkar) resembles Feminist Frequency host Anita Sarkeesian in no uncertain terms (hair pulled back, giant earrings, shown in online videos giving monologues)." from ArsTechnica. Assumption.
"a non-traditional female developer who fights misogynist accusations of promiscuity and wears Anita Sarkeesian’s trademark hoop earrings." from The Verge. Assumption.
"In real life, media critic Anita Sarkeesian became the target of a misogynist backlash after advocating for more diversity in video games." from Observer. GamerGate related means Anita Sarkeesian Assumption.
Final source of Washington post does not even mention Anita Sarkeesian.
-The Character amalgation of fictional Punjabi has hardly no connection to Anita except from some familiar clothing options according to the former 3 sources, is that a strong enough knot to bring up Sarkeesians's relevance?
-Twitter as a source for an input in itself is not used as a reliable source in other cases, why now?
TheRealVordox (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The Feminist Frequency twitter account is a valid source for the opinion of the Feminist Frequency twitter account.PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but adding Anita's(Or FemFreq) opinion on the episode has what relevance to any article or reliable source?TheRealVordox (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The character is an amalgamation of her and several other people gamergate have targeted. Her opinion is very relevant. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Two independent sources noting that the guest character resembles one of the public identities associated with Gamergate is completely reasonable to mention, as long as we say that's these sources made that comparison. --MASEM (t) 23:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

That I can agree with but not a part of my question of why we have the tweet. What relevance does her tweet have to do with any of the sources used to make her tweet important enough to write about? That's where my question is going. TheRealVordox (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, reliable sources making analysis , or what you are mistakenly identifying as "assumptions", is we EXACTLY the type of material include. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

They can make the comparrison and notice some resemblance, yes. But tell me which article of the sources mention FemFreq's tweet? TheRealVordox (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The RS say the character was based (at least in part) on Ms. Sarkeesian, ergo a response by the organization she heads (and of which she is far and away the most visible member) is relevant. It's rather like (forgive the strained analogy) hearsay. If we were using the tweet to prove a fact therein, it would not be relevant. The tweet is not used to prove the portrayal was 'sickening,' but instead is there to show the state of mind of Ms. Sarkeesian's enterprise, and by extension, of Ms. Sarkeesian herself. Therefore, it is both relevant and reliable as to that narrow usage. Dumuzid (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

FemFrequency is an official, non-anonymous, representative of an organization with an identified mission and therefore a valid source for a response. (where as girlsgetout@twit.com posting #gamergaters r about ethics is not). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Trolls never die, they just keep wandering farther and farther and farther from any ethical center at all

some people oh yes, we are really really really about ethics. and autism . and revenge. but mostly ethics.

As a Pro-GamerGater I am following the rules that I know as of yet of Wikipedia but I am making my stance clear while attempting to following the pillars as much as possible. I am not here for malicious or vandalizing attempts but more of an attempt of being a discussion tool around GamerGate related events, while attempting to interpret articles objectivily. I am not a troll by any regard. TheRealVordox (talk) 07:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)